" 7 •• 



,»»//, ■ > 



'WW 



^H 



, t /'iV'. 



^Ife^l 




Class Jl 

Book, i ' w 



topw. 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSm 




ROGER WIIvIvIAMS, 
From a photograph of the Monument at Providence, R. I. 



BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET 



CONSISTING OF ARTICLES ON 



Distinctive Baptist Principles, 

A SERIES BY THE LATE 

JEREMIAH B, JETER, D, D., 

AND ALSO ARTICLES BY 



President HENRY G. WESTON, D. D., LL.D., 
of Crozer Theological Seminary. 
President Emeritus ALVAH HOVEY, D. D., LL.D., 
of Newton Theological Institution. 
President E. Y. MULLINS, D. D., LL.D., of the Southern 
Baptist Theological Seminary. 
HOWARD OSGOOD, D. D., LL.D., of Rochester Theological 
Seminary. 
FRANKLIN JOHNSON, D. D., LL.D., of the Divinity School, Univer- 
sity of Chicago. 
B. O. TRUE, D. D. f LL.D., of Rochester Theological Seminary. 
J. B. GAMBRELL, D. D., of Texas. 
A. E. DICKINSON, D. D., of Richmond, Va. 
MADISON C. PETERS, D. D., of Baltimore, Md. 
W. R. L. SMITH, D. D., of Richmond, Va. 
R. H. PITT, D. D., of Richmond, Va. 
B. H. CARROLL, D. D., of Texas. 



NEW AND ENLARGED EDITION. 



RICHMOND, VA. : 
I902. 

The Reliqiotjs Herald Co. 



i K 





THE I BRASY thf 
GONGRtt; 

TvvO Cop ES i iCE!Ve» 

APR. 2t 1902 

COPVRftfMT ENTRY 

7TW3. '^ca. 

Cl <VSS ^-XXo. N». 


1 








Copyrighted 1902 
by thk rki/igious hkrai.d company 



fc>* 



tf5 



2»\ 



« « I « « *•• • • •• ••• • • * 



PREFACE. 



Dr. J. B. Jeter died February 18, 1880. In the 
autumn of 1876, in execution of a purpose formed 
long before, he began in the Religious Herald, of 
which he was then senior editor, a series of articles 
on "Distinctive Baptist Principles." He was at this 
date, had been for many years, and continued till 
his death the first among his brethren. His mind 
was not only rich in the accumulated stores of in- 
formation, well digested, but it was characterized 
by a manly vigor and a most uncommon candor, 
which commanded the respect and admiration of all 
who knew him. Dr. Jeter was a model contro- 
versial writer. Scrupulously fair in his statement 
of an opponent's views, he never descended from 
the high plane of courteous debate to indulge in 
personalities. He was incapable of subterfuge or 
indirection. He took no short cuts in discussion. 
The articles from his pen which we print in this 
volume illustrate these characteristics. No word 
of bitterness will be found in them. They are not 
marred by any attempt at smartness. They are 
never extravagant, never hysterical. They are 
marked by a sober and conscious strength, which 
makes them very convincing. It is only just to Dr. 
Jeter to say that these papers were prepared for 
the general reader. While not a technical and pro- 
fessional scholar, he was well acquainted with the 



4 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

conclusions of the best scholarship, and these are 
embodied in his articles. But we venture the 
opinion that the reader will find no obscure sen- 
tence, nothing abstruse or recondite. They are 
plain, clear, coherent. Moreover, let no one neg- 
lect the papers under the impression that they will 
be dull and lifeless. The writer's remarkable com- 
mand of his mother tongue, his kindly humor, his 
style, marked by vivacity as well as sobriety, most 
of all his clear and well-reasoned conviction of the 
unshakable truth of his contention, will give grow- 
ing interest to the series. 

^w *£• <£• 

While these articles were reappearing in the Re- 
ligious Herald, the editors determined to follow 
them with another series, written by the ablest 
and most representative of our living Baptist bre- 
thren. Accordingly the articles which are found 
in Part II. of this volume were, at our request, pre- 
pared, and we were permitted to print them in the 
Religious Herald. Dr. Henry G. Weston, Presi- 
dent of Crozer Theological Seminary — vigorous, 
clear, scholarly — contributes the first article, on 
that fundamental tenet of Baptists, "A Regenerate 
Church Membership." Dr. Alvah Hovey, President 
Emeritus of Newton Theological Seminary, who 
through his long, useful, and distinguished life has 
been growing "in the grace and knowledge" of his 
Lord — a most judicious interpreter of the Scrip- 
tures — compresses a most remarkable article on 
"The Subjects of Baptism" within very brief limits. 



PREFACE. 5 

It is distinguished company into which our 
young and gifted President Mullins, of the South- 
ern Baptist Theological Seminary, comes; but he 
is worthy to take his place with these venerated 
and experienced teachers. His article, on "The Case 
for Immersion at Present," is one of the best. 

In Dr. Jeter's fine series one aspect of the bap- 
tismal question was not discussed — its archaeology. 
It is not extravagant to say that there is no living 
man more competent to deal with that matter 
than Dr. Howard Osgood, who is among the very 
foremost conservative scholars of our day and time. 
His article on "Archaeology of Baptism — The Bath 
Under the Old Testament" is intensely interesting 
and highly informing. 

When President Harper was gathering around 
him his great corps of teachers for the University 
of Chicago, he brought to the Divinity School Dr. 
Franklin Johnson. Dr. Johnson had already given 
evidence of his intellectual power — notably in a 
volume meeting and combatting the destructive 
criticism which was attacking the Bible. When 
his strong and stalwart articles on "The Lord's 
Supper" appeared in the Herald, competent judges 
declared that he had covered the ground with sur- 
passing skill. We do not know of any argument 
on the whole question so simple, strong, and con- 
clusive. 

Dr. Benjamin 0. True, of Rochester Theological 
Seminary (Church History), one of the most accu- 
rate and sympathetic students of history, has 



6 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

brought us all greatly in debt to him by the fine 
and comprehensive glimpse which he has given of 
"Baptists and Religious Liberty." He makes us all 
long for more. 

Then, to complete this remarkable series and to 
round out this distinguished company, we laid 
violent hands on our Baptist commoner, our phi- 
losopher-preacher, Dr. J. B. Gambrell, at present of 
Texas, but in spirit, in the sweep of sympathy and 
intelligence, a real "citizen of the world." 

%&*> $,5% £% 

Now the Religious Herald, in printing the arti- 
cles by the revered and lamented Jeter, and in add- 
ing these by seven of the most distinguished and 
representative Baptist scholars and leaders in the 
world, modestly maintains that this volume is 
unique. Among all the treatises on denominational 
teaching that have appeared, we know of none like 
this. Dr. Jeter's articles were first published nearly 
a quarter of a century ago. They set forth views 
which had been formed probably twenty-five years 
earlier. In the first part of this volume, then, we 
have the product of one mind, thinking his theme 
through from start to finish. The articles in Part 
II. have been printed within the past few months. 
Seven men — one in Massachusetts, one in Pennsyl- 
vania, two in New York, one in Illinois, one in 
Kentucky, and one in Texas — furnish them. They 
write wholly independent of one another. Each 
develops his theme without considering how his 
discussion will fit in with those of his brethren. 



PREFACE. 7 

Now, then, we come out upon a most remarkable 
result. First, they do make a singularly consistent 
and harmonious whole. The Jeter articles do not 
fit one another more perfectly than these. Secondly, 
they harmonize entirely with the articles by Dr. 
Jeter. Probably fifty years lie between the Jeter 
articles and these by our living brethren. They 
have, too, been years of theological change — in 
some respects change that has been almost revolu- 
tion. Great denominations have been rent and 
great institutions hc,ve been alienated from denomi- 
national control by theological controversies. The 
seminaries have been hot-beds of heresy. But every 
important Baptist theological seminary in the 
land, except one, is represented in this series, and 
Drs. Jeter and Gambrell fitly represent the many 
who have not taught or learned in these schools 
of the prophets. Still, with no authoritative formu- 
lary, with no doctrinal court to settle differences, 
the Baptists continue to think and believe alike. 
Thus this book illustrates, in a way all the more 
impressive because unintentional, that solidarity of 
doctrine is best preserved where human formu- 
laries have no voice of authority, and the true 
secret of denominational and of Christian unity is 
a ,free and reverent approach to Christ, the centre 
of our hopes and the object of our faith. 

May God bless the book to the honor of his name 

and the spread of the truth! 

R. H. Pitt. 

Religious Herald Oflice, Richmond, Va., February 

25, 1901. 



Preface to CMrd edition. 



The first edition of this book was so quickly ex- 
hausted that it became necessary to issue a second 
edition. In this the original volume was enlarged 
by the addition of Dr. A. E. Dickinson's monograph 
on "What Baptist Principles Are Worth to the 
World," Dr. Madison C. Peters' paper on "Why I 
Became a Baptist," Dr. W. R. L. Smith's article on 
"Candid Scholarship," and a brief paper by the un- 
dersigned on "Sunday Observance and Religious 
Liberty." We make this third edition still more 
valuable by printing an admirable article by Dr. 
B. H. Carroll, Principal of the English Bible Course 
in Baylor University, and by printing good like- 
nesses of the contributors. 

R. H. Pitt. 

Richmond, Va., February 20, 1902. 




J. B JETER, D. D. 



PART L 

Distinctive Baptist Principles 

By the Late J. B. JETER, D. D., 
Editor The Religious Herald. 



DISTINCTIVE BAPTIST PRINCIPLES- 



Introduction. 



We promised a series of articles on this subject, 
so soon as we could dispose of other matters claim- 
ing our attention. The time has come for us to 
begin to redeem that pledge. An elaborate discus- 
sion of the various points comprehended in our 
scheme must not be expected. We can attempt no- 
thing beyond a brief and simple statement of Bap- 
tist principles, and the main arguments by which 
they are defended. Our statements or arguments 
may not be satisfactory to all our readers; but, in 
presenting them, we will endeavor to be candid, 
courteous, and fair. We shall earnestly aim so to 
write that, if any person should be offended, the 
fault shall be his, and not ours. We are so firmly 
convinced of the soundness of our principles that 
we can well afford to discuss them with calmness 
and good-will to all men. 

Before we enter on an examination of the dis- 
tinctive principles of Baptists, it is proper that the 
points regarding which they are in full and hearty 
accord with most Protestant Christians should be 
stated. The Baptists are united in the support of 
what is generally known as Evangelical Chris- 
tianity. This system embraces the plenary inspi- 
ration of the Scriptures — their sufficiency as a rule 



12 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

of faith and practice; the existence of God in three 
persons — Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; the perfec- 
tion of the divine law in its precepts and in its 
penalty; the apostasy and guilt of man; his utter 
inability to attain to righteousness or justification 
by deeds of law or good works; the incarnation, 
obedience, sufferings, and death of the Son of God; 
his resurrection, ascension, and assumption of uni- 
versal empire; salvation by grace through his aton- 
ing blood; the necessity of the Holy Spirit's influ- 
ence in the regeneration of the soul; free justifica- 
tion by faith in Christ; the necessity of good works 
as the fruit and evidence of faith; the resurrection 
of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust; 
the general judgment; the eternal blessedness of 
the redeemed and the eternal punishment of the 
wicked. 

We have presented these points, not as exhaustive 
of the evangelical system, but as comprehending 
its main articles. These constitute the funda- 
mental, vital, soul-saving facts and teachings of the 
gospel. In their support and diffusion, Baptists are 
happy to unite with Christians of every name and 
party. ■ We rejoice that they are received by most 
Protestant sects, and that, wherever they are 
heartily embraced, they bring forth the fruits of 
righteousness. We are ready to concede, too, that 
these points are far more numerous and important 
than those concerning which we differ from them. 

It may be proper to add that Baptists generally 
hold to what may be termed, for the sake of dis- 



INTRODUCTION. 13 

tinction, "moderate Calvinism." They are far from 
acknowledging Calvin as authority in matters of 
religion; but the system of doctrine which bears 
his name, as it has been modified by the study of 
the Scriptures, is now commonly accepted by Bap- 
tists. Fifty years ago, they mostly adhered to high 
Calvinism, as maintained by Dr. John Gill, of Lon- 
don. Since that time their views have been con- 
siderably changed, through the writings of Andrew 
Fuller and others. These differences of views, 
however, have not disturbed their harmony or hin- 
dered their co-operation, except with a small dis- 
senting party, whose Antinomian views led them 
to proclaim their hostility to missions and to all 
liberal efforts for the diffusion of Christianity. 

Before we enter on a discussion of Baptist princi- 
ples, it may be proper to state them briefly, that 
the reader may see the ground which we propose to 
traverse. A spiritual church membership lies at 
the foundation of all Baptist peculiarities. In har- 
mony with this principle, Baptists maintain that 
only believers, or regenerated persons, are proper 
subjects of baptism; that only immersion on a pro- 
fession of faith is true baptism; that only baptized 
believers are entitled to the privileges of church 
membership, and consequently that only church 
members should be admitted to the Lord's table. 
The last-named principle is held, not by all Bap- 
tists, but a large majority of them. 

There are some principles held by Baptists in 
common with other Christian denominations, and 



14 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

to which Baptists give peculiar prominence. 
Among these may be mentioned the sufficiency of 
the Scriptures for guidance in religious matters, 
and the independence of the churches, under Christ, 
in the exercise of discipline. All Protestant sects, 
so far as we know, except those of rationalistic 
tendency, adopt the first of these principles, though 
many of them seem to us to be sadly swayed, in the 
interpretation of the Scriptures, by tradition, 
creeds, and ecclesiastical relations. The second 
principle is held as firmly by the Independents of 
England, the Congregationalists of this country, 
and other minor sects, as by Baptists; though, per- 
haps, the latter give it greater prominency, and fol- 
low it more fully to its logical consequences than 
others do. These principles, however warmly they 
may be cherished by Baptists, cannot be classed 
among their distinctive views. 

The peculiar principles of Baptists, while they 
do not constitute the main doctrines of Christianity, 
deeply affect the purity, progress, and triumph of 
the kingdom of Christ. If these views are errone- 
ous, Baptists are more profoundly interested than 
any other people to discover the error. If they are 
deceived, they are exerting — unintentionally, but 
most unfortunately — a disturbing influence among 
the disciples of Christ. As we do not claim to be 
infallible, we should cultivate a candid spirit, dili- 
gently search the Scriptures, earnestly pray for 
divine guidance, and be ready to sacrifice reputa- 
tion for truth. If these views, however, are true, 



INTRODUCTION. 15 

it is the solemn duty of those who receive them to 
expound, defend, and proclaim them in such man- 
ner as shall best secure their prevalence and final 
triumph. The differences between Baptists and 
Pedobaptists are not a mere question as to whether 
much or little water shall be used in baptism. 
They fundamentally affect church organization. 
They are all concentrated in this inquiry: Shall 
churches be composed only of believers, who pro- 
fess their faith in the divinely appointed way, and 
prove their sincerity by lives in harmony with the 
gospel of Christ? To us, it seems that conformity 
to this method would free Christianity from more 
than half the evils by which it is brought into 
reproach and its progress and final triumph are 
hindered. It is clear that its adoption would de- 
liver the world from all hierarchies, all connec- 
tions between Church and State, except that cre- 
ated by mutual good-will, all pontiffs and lordly 
ecclesiastics, all persecution for conscience' sake, 
and all the immense expenditures lavished in sup- 
port of the palaces and splendors of princely pre- 
lates; and the true friends of Christ would be left 
to support and extend his cause by the sanctity of 
their lives, the purity of their doctrine, the faith- 
fulness of their labors, their liberal sacrifices, and 
the divine blessing on their efforts. Would not 
this be a gain? 

It is to be lamented that Christians cannot dis- 
cuss their differences with equanimity, fairness, 
and affection. They serve a common Lord, and he 



16 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

is the God of truth. He takes no pleasure in error, 
however plausibly it may be defended. They have 
a common interest to promote, and that is the ex- 
tension of the kingdom and the manifestation of 
the glory of their Redeemer. It is only by the 
knowledge and the diffusion of divine truth that 
they can promote the end for which they were 
translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son. 
It is vain, however, to hope that the discussion of 
controverted religious questions, except in rare in- 
stances, will be conducted with a simple desire to 
discover and to maintain truth. The pride of 
opinion, the desire of victory, sectarian zeal, the 
prejudices of education, and personal interests, are 
likely to give more or less inspiration and heat 
to religious controversy, by which its proper end 
is, in a great measure, defeated. 

As our arguments will be based chiefly on the 
common version of the Scriptures, it is proper to no- 
tice a few things concerning it. It was made, not 
by Baptists, but by Pedobaptists. The translators 
were instructed by King James to retain the "old 
ecclesiastical words" found in the existing versions. 
Whether baptism belonged to this category, we 
need not decide. Certain it is that the translators 
did not render baptize and its derivatives into Eng- 
lish, but merely gave them an English termination 
and spelt them with Latin letters. The English 
reader is left to infer their meaning from their 
connection and the circumstances of the act which 
they denote. The reader must perceive that a ver- 



INTRODUCTION. 17 

sion made by Pedobaptist scholars, under such a re- 
striction, can have no unfair leaning to Baptist 
principles; and yet we expect to show, by a proper 
use of it, their soundness. 



18 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

CHAPTER I. 
A Spiritual, or Regenerate, Church Membership. 

A spiritual, or regenerate, church membership, as 
already stated, lies at the foundation of all Baptist 
peculiarities. On this point, Baptists and the few 
small sects that agree with them differ from the 
whole Christian world. If numbers were an in- 
fallible sign of truth, we should be constrained to 
abandon our principles. But they are not. On 
this supposition, Protestantism would be compelled 
to yield to Romanism, and Christianity itself to 
paganism. The oracles of God are the only infalli- 
ble test of truth. To these we appeal. 

The Israelitish theocracy, or commonwealth, dif- 
fered widely from the Christian church, or, more 
properly, churches. That institution — a politico- 
religious organization — consisted only of the de- 
scendants of Abraham, in the line of Jacob, or 
Israel, with such foreigners as chose, by submis- 
sion to a painful and bloody rite, to become incor- 
porated with the nation. Citizenship in the com- 
monwealth was hereditary, and was maintained, 
not by regeneration and a life of piety, but by the 
observance of various costly rites. The govern- 
ment was designed and admirably adapted to pre- 
serve the nation from commingling with the neigh- 
boring heathen. To the Israelites were committed 
the oracles of God and the honor of maintaining 
his worship amid the gloom of surrounding idola- 



A SPIRITUAL OR REGENERATE MEMBERSHIP. 19 

try. From that favored race the Messiah was to 
descend, in whom all nations were to be blessed. 

In the fulness of time, Jesus of Nazareth made 
his appearance. He claimed to be the promised 
Messiah, and confirmed his title to the office by the 
wisdom of his words and the number and greatness 
of his miracles. He came, not to establish or to 
modify the "commonwealth of Israel," but to intro- 
duce a new dispensation, or order of things. After 
a brief, but most instructive, ministry, terminating 
in his sacrificial death, he endowed his apostles 
with plenary inspiration and the power of working 
miracles, and entrusted to them the duty of carry- 
ing into effect his gracious and sublime mission. 

In the execution of the plan, the apostles organ- 
ized churches, first in Judea, then in Samaria and 
Galilee, and afterwards among the heathen nations 
throughout the Roman empire. These churches 
were not a continuation of the Jewish hierarchy. 
They differed from it widely in members, doctrine, 
rites, worship, and discipline. No man was enti- 
tled to a place in a Christian church because of his 
connection with a synagogue. Nicodemus, a ruler 
of the Jews, could not share in the blessings of 
the new kingdom without regeneration. Under the 
changed order of things, circumcision, which was a 
passport to the privileges of the synagogue, availed 
nothing. All the rites and ceremonies of the Leviti- 
cal economy were abolished under the new dispen- 
sation. The truth, which had been symbolically 
and dimly revealed to the Jews, was clearly taught 



20 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

in the churches. Repentance, faith, regeneration, 
were conditions of admission to their fellowship, 
and holy lives were essential to its continuance. 
Instead of the blood sacrifices of the Jews, the 
churches offered up "spiritual sacrifices, acceptable 
to God by Jesus Christ." In fine, the common- 
wealth of Israel was a hierarchy; but the churches 
are voluntary associations. That was typical, pre- 
paratory, and temporary; these are spiritual and 
permanent. 

Having made these general remarks, we will now 
proceed to prove their correctness. John the Bajv 
tist, the morning star of the new dispensation, was 
an eminent reformer. He preached repentance and 
the necessity of godly lives, laid the axe at the 
root of the trees which did not bear good fruit, 
and proclaimed that descent from Abraham, which 
secured all the benefits of Judaism, would avail 
nothing under the reign of the Messiah. He bap- 
tized the penitent for the remission of sins; but he 
organized no church among his disciples. His mis- 
sion was to prepare the way of the Messiah, by 
awaking an expectation of his coming, making 
ready a people to receive him, and introducing him 
into his public ministry; and, having done these 
things, his work was ended. Matt. iii. 1-12; Mk. i. 
1-11; Lu. iii. 2-22; Jno. iii. 28-31. 

The personal ministry of Jesus was preparatory 
to the constitution of churches. His preaching was 
eminently searching, and fitted to reform men and 
make them spiritual and devout; but during his 



A SPIRITUAL OR REGENERATE MEMBERSHIP. 21 

life no church was organized, and his disciples were 
subject to no discipline, and their labors, except so 
far as they were directed by his personal attention, 
were without concert. 

On the day of Pentecost, after the ascension of 
Jesus, the apostles, by the descent of the Holy 
Spirit, were fully qualified to carry forward and 
complete the work that John and Jesus had begun. 
The first church was formed in Jerusalem, and this 
soon became the mother of other churches in vari- 
ous countries. We have at present no concern with 
them, but to show that they were composed exclu- 
sively of believers — converts to Christianity — or 
persons who made a credible profession of piety. 
The mother church was clearly a spiritual one. The 
120 disciples who held a continuous prayer meet- 
ing in Jerusalem were its nucleus. Acts i. 14, 15. 
To these were added 3,000 believers on the day of 
Pentecost. Acts ii. 41. Additions were daily made 
to the church, but only of such as were saved. 
Verse 47. To this company was added Joses, sur- 
named Barnabas, who signalized his conversion 
by his liberality to the cause of Christ. Acts iv. 36, 
37. After the death of Ananias and Sapphira, the 
ungodly were deterred from joining the church; 
"but believers were the more added to the Lord, 
multitudes both cf men and women." Acts v. 13, 
14. After the appointment of deacons, "The word 
of God increased, and the number of disciples mul- 
tiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company 
of the priests were obedient to the faith." Acts vi. 



22 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

7. This was the true church. Are we not justified 
in affirming that it was composed of believers, and 
of believers only? There is not the slightest trace 
in the copious inspired record that, in this large, 
primitive, model church, there were unconverted 
seekers, or infants or hereditary members. The 
church was organized under the immediate guid- 
ance of the Holy Spirit and according to the will 
of Christ, and we have a full and infallible account 
of its membership, for the instruction of church 
builders in all ages. Is it possible that, on the 
Pedobaptist theory of church construction, there 
should have been no reference to its infant mem- 
bers? Among the thousands of believers added to 
the church, did none claim the covenant blessing 
for their children? Or did the faithful historian 
fail to mention so important a fact? Can anybody 
believe that, if Pedobaptists were favored with such 
a wonderful increase of members, their account of 
it would contain no allusion to the reception of the 
infant offspring of the converts into the church? 

Had we no other proof that the primitive 
churches were composed exclusively of believers, 
the history of the church at Jerusalem should fully 
satisfy us on that point. It is perfectly fair to con- 
clude that all the churches were conformed, in 
their membership, as in other things, to the mother 
church. On this point, however, evidence is am- 
ple. The second church was probably organized in 
Samaria. We have not so full an account of its 
constitution as we have of that at Jerusalem, but 



A SPIRITUAL OR REGENERATE MEMBERSHIP. 23 

quite enough to guide us to a right conclusion. 
After the persecution of the disciples consequent 
on the death of Stephen, "Philip went down to Sa- 
maria and preached Christ unto them." Many of 
the Samaritans gave heed to his words and were 
joyfully converted. "When they believed Philip 
preaching the things concerning the kingdom of 
God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were bap- 
tized, both men and women." Acts viii. 12. We 
have no definite account of the organization of the 
church, but there can be no reasonable doubt that 
these believing men and women were its constitu- 
ent members. Children were not among the bap- 
tized, nor can we reasonably suppose that they were 
admitted into the church. 

In the Acts of the Apostles, covering a period of 
more than thirty years, and recording the labors 
of the apostles and their assistants in founding and 
edifying churches in a large part of the Roman 
empire, there is not the slightest evidence, or 
shadow of evidence, except that supposed to be fur- 
nished by household baptisms, (which will be here- 
after examined,) that any persons were admitted 
to membership in the churches except on a credible 
profession of faith, or retained in them, by apos- 
tolic sanction, without lives in harmony with their 
profession. 

The proof furnished by the apostolic epistles in 
favor of the spiritual membership of the primitive 
churches is quite as conclusive as that drawn from 
their inspired history. Let us briefly examine it. 



24 BAPTIST PEINCIPLES BESET. 

Paul addressed his first epistle in the canon, "To 
all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be 
saints," and thanked God that their faith was 
"spoken of throughout the world." Rom. i. 7, 8. 
If the church contained other members, either 
adults or infants, the fact does not appear in the 
long letter. Human ingenuity has not been able to 
find in all its chapters a single allusion, or shadow 
of allusion, to any other than a regenerate mem- 
bership. 

The next epistle in course was directed by the 
apostle "Unto the church of God in Corinth"; but, 
that there might be no mistake as to its member- 
ship, he adds, "to them that are sanctified in Christ 
Jesus, called to be saints," &c. 1 Cor. i. 2. The 
second epistle was addressed by Paul and Timothy, 
"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with 
all the saints which are in all Achaia." 2 Cor. i. 1. 
We think that it is impossible to find in these let- 
ters, copious as they are in instruction, the slight- 
est sanction of an unregenerate church member- 
ship. 

The next epistle was addressed by Paul, not to a 
single church, but to the churches of the large 
province of Galatia. "Grace be to you and peace," 
he said, "from God the Father, and from our Lord 
Jesus Christ." The apostle did not use such lan- 
guage as this to the unconverted. Only believers 
are the recipients of grace and peace. Of the un- 
believing his language was: "If any man love not 
the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema mara- 



A SPIRITUAL OB REGENERATE MEMBERSHIP. 25 

natha." We can find in this epistle no trace of in- 
fant church membership. 

We must abridge our labors on this point. The 
epistle to the Ephesians was addressed "to the 
saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in 
Christ Jesus." Eph. i. 1. The letter to the Philip- 
pians was directed "to all the saints in Christ 
Jesus," &c. Phil. i. 1. The epistle to the Colos- 
sians was addressed "to the saints and faithful bre- 
thren in Christ which are at Colosse." Col. i. 2. 

If there were unconverted seekers or infants in 
the apostolic churches, is it not strange and in- 
explicable that the apostle in his epistles should 
have taken no notice of them? They must have 
constituted a large and important part of the 
churches. Many questions must have arisen con- 
cerning the relations which they bore to the 
churches and the responsibilities arising from 
them. Were they members in full fellowship or 
only nominal members? Were they entitled to par- 
take of the Lord's supper? Were they subject to 
discipline as other members? Should they be 
formally expelled from the churches, if they fur- 
nished no evidence of piety? If they ceased to be 
members by lack of piety, at what age and under 
what circumstances did their membership termi- 
nate? These and similar questions have greatly 
perplexed modern Pedobaptists. Is it possible that 
these difficulties should not have arisen in the 
primitive churches, if they contained infant mem- 
bers? How is it to be explained that the Spirit 



26 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES BESET. 

of inspiration, so full of light and love, left the 
churches in utter ignorance on questions so vitally 
affecting their interests? 

All these difficulties are obviated and all these 
questions are explained by a spiritual church mem- 
bership. The primitive churches were composed of 
believers, and of believers only, and all the facts 
recorded in the inspired history and all the instruc- 
tions in the inspired epistles are in perfect har- 
mony with this fundamental principle of church 
organization. 



BAPTISM A CONDITION OF CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 27 

CHAPTER II. 
Baptism a Condition of Church Membership. 

Baptism is a Christian ordinance. It originated 
in the wisdom, goodness, and authority of God. 
John was divinely commissioned to baptize. Jno. 
i. 3. Jesus honored the crdinance of baptism by 
receiving it at the hands of John. Matt. iii. 16, 17. 
When Jesus entered on his public ministry, he con- 
tinued the administration of baptism, through the 
agency of his disciples. Jno. iv. 2, 3. The ordi- 
nance occupies an important place in the great com- 
mission which Jesus, after his resurrection, gave 
to the apostles for evangelizing the world. Matt, 
xxviii. 19, 20. No man can intelligently and can- 
didly read the New Testament without perceiving 
that baptism is of solemn import, and designed to 
exert a momentous influence in the kingdom of 
Christ. 

It has been already shown that the first church 
was organized in the city of Jerusalem, after the 
ascension of Jesus, and was composed entirely of 
believers. This church was formed exclusively of 
Jews. No Gentile was admitted, or could have 
been admitted for some years after its constitu- 
tion, to a participation of its privileges. The Jews 
were not received into it in virtue of their descent 
from Abraham, or their interest in the covenant 
that God made with him, or their circumcision, or 
their good standing in the hierarchy. Still more, 



28 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

they were not admitted into it simply because of 
their repentance, faith, and regeneration. Peter, 
standing in the midst of the great Pentecostal 
assembly, with a cloven tongue of fire upon him, to 
symbolize his plenary inspiration, said: "Repent 
and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of 
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Acts ii. 38. 
Repentance was an indispensable duty — it implied 
faith and the new birth — a great moral change; 
but it was not enough to secure a participation in 
the privileges of the church then in the process of 
formation. It was a visible body, and a divinely 
prescribed outward act, in confession of repentance, 
faith, and the remission of sins, through the name 
of Jesus Christ, was an essential condition of a 
formal union with it. To this inspired order the 
converts all conformed. "Then they that gladly re- 
ceived" Peter's "word were baptized; and the same 
day there were added unto them about three thou- 
sand souls." Verse 41. There is no misconceiving 
the meaning of this language. The converts were 
baptized before they entered the church. Of the 
multitudes, on that day of excitement and of won- 
ders, not one was added to the church without bap- 
tism. 

We must notice briefly the significance of this 
transaction. Jesus, after he was risen from the 
dead, remained forty days with his apostles, "speak- 
ing of the things pertaining to the kingdom of 
God." Acts i. 3. We cannot doubt that his in- 
structions were comprehensive and minute. The 



BAPTISM A CONDITION OF CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 29 

apostles were liable, however, to misunderstand or 
forget his teaching; but, to preserve them from 
the possibility of error, they were commanded to 
remain until they "should be endued with power 
from on high"; that is, receive the baptism of the 
Holy Spirit. Lu. xxiv. 49; Acts i. 5. Are we not 
bound to believe that the apostles, on the day of 
Pentecost, having been "endued with power from 
on high," said and did just what was according to 
the will of Christ, and designed to be for the guid- 
ance of his disciples in all ages? What they re- 
quired of the Jews on the day of Pentecost, in order 
to admission into the church, was required of them 
at all places, at all times, and under all circum- 
stances, for the same purpose. 

If baptism was demanded of the Jews as a pre- 
requisite of church membership, we may reasonably 
conclude that the Gentiles were not admitted to 
the privilege except on the same condition. The 
Jews, as some Pedobaptists maintain, were already 
members of the church, and had received the rite 
of circumcision, for which baptism is merely a sub- 
stitute; and yet the Jews — even rulers of the Jews, 
and priests, though they had been circumcised and 
were devout — could not be admitted into the church 
at Jerusalem, or into any other church, without 
baptism. Certainly, then, the heathen, ignorant of 
God and his worship, were not received into the 
churches without this divinely appointed, public, 
solemn, and impressive acknowledgment of the au- 



80 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

thority of Christ ana tne enjoyment of the remis- 
sion of sins through his blood. 

We are not, however, left to any uncertain infer- 
ence on this momentous subject. We have definite 
scriptural information concerning it. Peter, in- 
structed by a vision from heaven, went from Joppa 
to Csesarea, where he found Cornelius, a Roman 
officer and a Gentile, who had been directed by a 
holy angel to assemble "his kinsmen and near 
friends," all Gentiles, to hear the words of the 
apostle. Peter preached the gospel to them; and 
while he was speaking, "the Holy Spirit fell on all 
them that heard the word." It was a renewal of 
the wonders of the day of Pentecost. The Chris- 
tian Jews accompanying Peter were astonished at 
this effusion of the Holy Ghost on the Gentiles. 
They had not anticipated such a display of divine 
grace on behalf of the heathen. The miracle, how- 
ever, was undeniable, and Peter, guided by the 
Spirit of inspiration, promptly saw and admitted 
all its consequences. He did not say: God has re- 
ceived these Gentiles, and they may dispense with 
baptism; they have received the baptism of the 
Holy Ghost, and water baptism can do them no 
good; as God has accepted them, the church also is 
bound to accept them. No; the events of the Pente- 
costal reformation had not faded from his memory. 
He recollected the divine order concerning the Jews, 
and, seeing that it was applicable to the Gentiles, 
said: "Can any man forbid water, that these 
should not be baptized, which have received the 



BAPTISM A CONDITION OF CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 31 

Holy Ghost as well as we?" Their baptism was not 
a matter of choice, or taste, or convenience, but a 
solemn duty. "He commanded them to be baptized 
in the name of the Lord." Acts x. 24-48. 

There can be no good reason to suppose that, as 
these first Gentile converts were baptized under the 
immediate direction of the Holy Spirit, preparatory 
to church membership, other Gentiles were admit- 
ted into the churches without baptism. There 
surely can be no solid reason furnished why the 
ordinance, which was obligatory on the first and 
most favored converts from heathenism, is not the 
duty of all Gentile believers. 

The apostolic churches, so far as we have definite 
information of their constituency, were all com- 
posed of baptized believers. « Paul, writing to the 
saints at Rome, and classing himself among them, 
said: "We are buried with him (Christ) by bap- 
tism into death." Rom. vi. 4. Paul preached the 
gospel in Corinth, and "many of the Corinthians, 
hearing, believed and were baptized." Acts xviii. 
8. These baptized believers doubtless constituted 
the church in that city. Writing to them after- 
wards, and reproving them for their divisions, he 
inquired, "Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" 
He takes it for granted as well that they had been 
baptized as that they had not been baptized in the 
name of Paul. He had baptized Crispus and Gaius 
and the household of Stephanas; but there is no 
cause to conclude that, as these members were 
baptized by the apostle, other members were left 



32 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

without the ordinance. 1 Cor. i. 13-16. Moreover, 
Paul, in writing to the church in Corinth, after 
enumerating the gross vices prevalent among the 
Gentiles, says: "And such were some of you; but 
ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are 
justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by 
the Spirit of our God." 1 Cor. vi. 11. In this pas- 
sage, "washed" is generally supposed by commen- 
tators to mean "baptized"; and, indeed, as dis- 
tinguished from "sanctified" and "justified," we do 
not see what else it can mean. We may fairly 
conclude, then, that the church in the city of 
Corinth was composed exclusively of baptized per- 
sons. Lydia and her household, and the jailer 
and his family, who constituted the nucleus of the 
church at Philippi, were all baptized; and there is 
no ground to conclude that the other members of 
the church did not submit to the ordinance. Acts 
xvi. 15, 33. To the church in Colosse the apostle 
wrote: "Ye are * * * buried with him (Christ) in 
baptism." Col. ii. 12. 

As both Jews and Gentiles were admitted into 
the church by baptism, as several of the churches 
we know were composed wholly of baptized mem- 
bers, and as all the churches were under the same 
Lord and the sann law, it is clear that baptism 
was a condition of membership in the primitive 
churches. 

Baptism is not essential to salvation, but is in 
many cases essential to obedience, and obedience is 
essential to salvation. "The Pharisees and lawyers 



BAPTISM A CONDITION OF CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 33 

rejected the counsel of God against themselves, not 
being baptized with the baptism of John." Lu. vi. 
30. Those who reject the counsel of God cannot 
be wise or in safety, and the apostolic baptism is 
not less the counsel of God than was that of John. 
Jno. xv. 14. Christ has made it obligatory on all 
who would enter his church, and that is enough to 
control the conduct of those who love him. 

We have, perhaps, unnecessarily extended this 
argument. No evidence, or semblance of evidence, 
can be furnished from the Scriptures that any per- 
son was ever received into an apostolic church 
without baptism. Indeed, there is no point con- 
cerning which Christians of all denominations and 
parties are more united than in maintaining the 
necessity of baptism to church membership. There 
is no large and settled church or sect that does 
not make baptism a condition of admission to its 
privileges. 



34 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

CHAPTER III. 
Believers the Only Subjects of Baptism. 

If, as we have shown, the churches of Christ were 
composed exclusively of believers who had been 
voluntarily baptized, we may reasonably expect to 
find the ordinance restricted to believers. Our 
knowledge on the subject must be derived wholly 
from the New Testament. As the rite is peculiar 
to the new dispensation, the Scriptures of the Old 
Testament contain no allusion to it. Let us come, 
then, to the common version of the New Testament, 
and examine it honestly and carefully, that we may 
learn what it teaches concerning the subjects of 
baptism. 

That the baptism of John was restricted to the 
penitent is, so far as we know, unquestioned. "John 
did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the bap- 
tism of repentance for the remission of sins." In 
our opinion, the differences between the baptism 
of John and that of the apostles, after the ascen- 
sion of Jesus, were circumstantial, and not funda- 
mental. The discussion of this question, however, 
would lead us too far from our purpose, and it is not 
necessary for its accomplishment. We have intro- 
duced the subject to make a single remark. If 
John's baptism and the baptism of Christ's dis- 
ciples, before his crucifixion, were limited to peni- 
tent believers, and the apostolic baptism, after his 
resurrection from the dead, was extended to the 



BELIEVERS THE ONLY SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 35 

unconverted children of baptized believers, is it 
not strange and inexplicable that so radical a 
change should have taken place in the administra- 
tion of the ordinance without any distinct mention 
of it, or even a slight reference to it? If there was 
no such change, the omission is easily understood. 
Baptism is a positive or legal institution. It is of 
no obligation except from the divine will, and as 
that will is revealed to us. The question concern- 
ing it should be — not, What thinkest thou? but, 
How readest thou? It is what God wills it to be — 
nothing more and nothing less. Let us turn, then, 
to the law of Christian baptism? Matt, xxviii. 19, 
20: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, bap- 
tizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to ob- 
serve all things whatsoever I have commanded 
you." All positive laws must be strictly construed. 
The command to make disciples and baptize them 
differs widely from the command to baptize per- 
sons and then make disciples of them. How did 
the apostles understand their grand commission? 
"Teach all nations, baptizing them" — not nations 
in the gross, good, bad, and indifferent, but the 
taught, disciples; "teaching them" — the baptized 
disciples — "to observe all things," &c. This was 
the plain construction of the language. How would 
the training of the apostles lead them to understand 
it? They were not ignorant on the subject of bap- 
tism. They had attended on the ministrations of 
John and seen that his baptisms were limited to 



36 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

penitents, who brought forth the fruits of repent* 
ance. Some of them certainly, probably all of 
them, had received baptism at his hands. Jno. i. 37, 
40. They and their fellow-laborers had baptized 
more disciples than John. They knew nothing of 
any baptism except the baptism of disciples. How 
is it possible, then, that they should have under- 
stood their commission except in its plain sense? 
It changed the formula, but not the subjects of tho 
rite? 

The interpretation which the apostles put on the 
language of their commission we may learn clearly 
and certainly from their practice. They proceeded, 
in a few days, under the infallible guidance of the 
Holy Spirit, to the execution of their sacred trust. 
On the day of Pentecost — the most memorable day 
in the history of Christian churches — only those 
were baptized who "gladly received his (Peter's) 
word"; that is, who heartily embraced the gospeL 
Acts ii. 41. 

In every subsequent account of the administra- 
tion of baptism (except in the cases of household 
baptisms, which will receive timely consideration), 
it is clear that the rite was limited to believers. 
Philip was the first evangelist who carried the gos- 
pel beyond the limits of Judea. He went down to 
Samaria and preached Christ with great success. 
"The people with one accord gave heed unto those 
things which Philip spake." "There was great joy 
in that city." Now surely we shall learn how the 
apostles and their fellow-disciples understood the 



BELIEVERS THE ONLY SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 37 

law of baptism. The evangelist followed the exam- 
ple of the pentecostian laborers. "When they (the 
Samaritans) believed Philip preaching the things 
concerning the kingdom of God and the name of 
Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and 
women." Acts viii. 12. 

It is not necessary to mention at length the bap- 
tism of the Ethiopian treasurer (Acts viii. 36-38), 
of Saul of Tarsus (ix. 18), of Cornelius and his 
friends, the first Gentile converts (x. 47), and the 
Corinthians (xviii. 8), who, according to the terms 
of the commission and the practice of the apostles, 
before and after the resurrection of Jesus, were all 
baptized after they were made disciples. 

We will close this argument with the statement 
of an interesting event illustrative of it. Rev. 
Luther Rice was one of the most clear-headed men 
that we have ever known. He was sent by the 
Congregationalists as a missionary to India. It was 
his lot to make the voyage in company with two 
English Baptist missionaries. With one of them, 
a man of some learning and acuteness, he fre- 
quently discussed the subject of baptism. Rice 
found no difficulty in replying to his arguments, 
and took great pleasure in perplexing him by 
questions. One evening, at the close of a pro- 
tracted discussion, the other Baptist missionary, a 
plain, sensible man, who had listened silently to the 
debate, said: "If a man had never heard of infant 
baptism, he might read through the New Testament 
without ever thinking of it." Rice hastily thought of 



38 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

the Scriptures relating to baptism, but felt a little 
disconcerted at his inability to remember a text 
that certainly had reference to the practice. The 
remark haunted him. He resolved to examine the 
Scriptures more carefully on the subject. The more 
he searched them, the more painfully he was con- 
vinced of their silence concerning infant baptism. 
He had no doubt but that they taught it; but just 
where or how he could not perceive. He had great 
confidence in the learning and astuteness of Jud- 
son, who had preceded him in the voyage to India. 
He resolved to postpone the investigation of the 
subject until he could have the aid of his able 
fellow-missionary. 

On reaching his destination and meeting Judson, 
he proceeded at length and very carefully to state 
his difficulties regarding infant baptism. Judson, 
having heard him patiently, quietly replied that 
his objections were unanswerable. Rice was con- 
founded at the concession, and greatly grieved to 
find that Judson was on the point of being im- 
mersed on a profession of his faith. 

Rice resolved at once to dismiss the subject from 
his mind. He had been sent out by the Congre- 
gationalists, and was dependent on them for sup- 
port. His defection would hinder the success of 
the mission, or might even destroy it. Whatever 
might be true in regard to baptism, it would be un- 
wise to pursue a course fraught with so many evil 
consequences. Thus he reasoned; but his con- 
science was truer than his head. Meditation and 



BELIEVERS THE ONLY SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 39 

prayer brought him to the conclusion that it is bet- 
ter to please God than men, and that the way to be 
useful is to do right. So soon as he was willing 
to follow the convictions of his conscience, his 
doubts and difficulties were all dissipated. The 
path of duty was straight and plain before him. 
He was baptized, returned to the United States, 
awakened the Baptist denomination on the subject 
of missions and of education, and contributed more 
than any man, dead or living, to their prosperity, 
growth, influence, and usefulness. 

Let us not lose sight of the argument in our in- 
terest in the story. If infant baptism is a divine 
ordinance, it is obligatory on all Christian parents. 
The Scriptures were written for their instruction 
in righteousness. Is it not strange that they should 
contain no clear information concerning the rite? 
The duty of the Israelitish parents to circumcise 
their children, and of all believers to be baptized, is 
plain enough — a child may see it written as with a 
sunbeam ; but the duty of parents to have their chil- 
dren baptized can be found only by diligent search 
and ingenious interpretations of Scripture, and mul- 
titudes cannot find it at all. 



40 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

CHAPTER IV. 
Believers the Only Subjects of Baptism. 

Pedobaptists are not agreed as to the reasons for 
baptizing infants. Some baptize them because 
they are holy and worthy to receive it, and others 
because they are sinful and need its influence. 
Some derive their right to the ordinance from 
household baptisms, and others from the Abrahamic 
covenant and circumcision. Many, admitting that 
it is not of divine authority, practise it because it 
is a beautiful, appropriate, and useful ceremony. 
We must notice some of these pleas for the rite. 

Before entering on an examination of the bap- 
tized households, we must offer a few general re- 
marks. First, then, all families do not contain 
children, and particularly young children. In 
every neighborhood, houses may be found in which 
there are no infants. To base a positive Christian 
institution on the possibility or probability — for 
certainty there cannot be — that there were little 
children in the three or four families of whose 
baptism we read in the Scriptures, and that these 
children were baptized, is quite adventurous. 
Statute law is specific and positive, not inferential, 
and surely leaves no place for conjecture. More- 
over, families are frequently spoken of in distinc- 
tion from infants or without regard to them. If 
it is affirmed that a man has an intelligent or a 
pious family, nobody concludes that he has no in- 




ROBERT BAYLOR SEMPLE, D. D., 
I 769-1831. 

Distinguished Minister and Historian of Virginia Baptists. 



BELIEVERS THE ONLY SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 41 

fants in his household, or that they are intelligent 
or pious. The remark is naturally and universally 
supposed to refer to that part of the family of 
whom intelligence or piety may be reasonably predi- 
cated. The person who should infer from the state- 
ment that the family contained infants, and that 
they were distinguished for their knowledge or 
godliness, would prove himself to be a sophist, or 
something more unfortunate. 

How would the baptism of households be under- 
stood by the primitive Christians? The command 
was to baptize disciples, and all the early baptisms, 
if household baptisms be excepted, were in har- 
mony with the command. How natural, then, was 
it for them to understand by household baptisms 
the baptism of such members of the families as 
were capable of complying with the prescribed con- 
ditions of the ordinance — such as had been in- 
structed, and, under the influence of instruction, 
had repented and believed the gospel. They could 
hardly have imagined that these baptisms set aside 
the divine law of baptism and disregarded the ex- 
ample of the apostles, given under circumstances of 
so great solemnity in Jerusalem and Caesarea. 
Surely nothing short of inspired testimony could 
have convinced them that household baptisms dif- 
fered so widely from baptisms administered by the 
apostles under the immediate guidance of the Holy 
Spirit, and on occasions of the most profound in- 
terest. 

Let us now examine the household baptisms in 



42 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

detail, that we may see what light they shed on in- 
fant baptism. We have an account of the baptism 
of four households in the New Testament — those 
of Cornelius, Stephanas, the jailer, and Lydia. We 
will notice them in the order in which we have 
named them. 

The baptism of the family of Cornelius, the Ro- 
man centurion, is not definitely mentioned; but the 
fact is unquestionable. By divine direction, he 
sent to Joppa for Peter, to learn what he ought 
to do. Cornelius waited for the apostle in Caesarea, 
and ''called together his kinsmen and near friends" 
to hear him. Peter preached to them the gospel. 
It was the first sermon delivered to the Gentiles, 
and God accompanied it with an extraordinary 
demonstration of his favor. "The Holy Ghost fell 
on all them which heard the word," and they spake 
"with tongues and did magnify God"; and the apos- 
tle "commanded them to be baptized in the name of 
the Lord Jesus." That the family of Cornelius 
were all included among the converts, there is no 
ground to question. They would surely have been 
called with his other kindred to hear so important 
a message, under circumstances of such thrilling 
interest; especially as we are informed that the 
tenturion "feared God, with all his house." This 
household baptism offers no support to infant bap- 
tism, but is in perfect harmony with the law of 
baptism and the apostolic practice on- the day of 
Pentecost. Cornelius was the head of a family 
that reverenced the true God, heard the gospel, re- 



BELIEVERS THE ONLY SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 43 

ceived the gift of the Holy Ghost, glorified God, 
and were baptized in the name of Jesus. We are 
decidedly in favor of the baptism of all such house- 
holds. Acts x. 2, 24, 44, 46-48. 

"I baptized/' said Paul, "the household of Ste- 
phanas." 1 Cor. i. 16. The apostle visited Corinth 
about A. D. 54 or 55, where he remained "a year 
and six months, teaching the word of God among 
them." Acts xviii. 11. During this time, he bap- 
tized Stephanas and his family. In the year A. D. 
59, or thereabouts, he wrote his first letter to "the 
church of God" in that city. In the epistle he 
makes special reference to the house of Stephanas. 
"I beseech you, brethren," said he, "(ye know the 
house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of 
Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to 
the ministry of the saints,) that ye submit your- 
selves unto such," &c. 1 Cor. xvi. 15, 16. Several 
points are worthy of notice in this text. The 
family of Stephanas were "the first fruits of 
Achaia." This term is applied to the regenerate. 
"Of his own will begat he us with the word of 
truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his 
creatures." Jas. i. 18. See, also, Rev. xiv. 4. The 
word is never used, so far as we know, to denote 
unconscious or unregenerate infants. This family, 
in four or five years after their baptism, devoted 
"themselves to the ministry of the saints," whether 
in preaching the word or supplying the wants of 
the poor, we do not know. It was a benevolent, 
noble service, commended by the Spirit of inspira- 



44 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

tion. If they were infants baptized by Paul, four or 
five years previously, they were the most precocious 
children that we have read of. Nor is this all. 
The apostle besought the Corinthian saints, re- 
nowned throughout the world for their spiritual 
gifts (1 Cor. i. 7), to "submit" themselves "unto 
such" as "the house of Stephanas." They were not 
only the benefactors of the church, but fitted to 
bear rule in it. They were not infants, not chil- 
dren; nor were they at the time of their baptism. 
It ought in fairness to be conceded that the bap- 
tism of the house of Stephanas yields no support 
to infant baptism, but lends its full weight to the 
exclusive baptism of believers. 

We must now notice the baptism of the house- 
he >f the Philippian jailer, recorded in Acts xvi. 
24-34. Paul, divinely guided, passed for the first 
time into Europe, and commenced his ministrations 
at a Roman post called Philippi. Here several per- 
sons were converted and baptized, and a great per- 
secution was commenced against Paul and Silas. 
They were arrested, scourged, and committed to the 
hands of the jailer, under strict charge to keep 
them safely. He cast them into the dungeon and 
made their feet fast in the stocks. They were de- 
livered from their bondage by divine interposition, 
and the jailer was saved from suicide by the 
friendly counsel of Paul. We shall notice the nar- 
rative only so far as it relates to the point under 
discussion. The jailer brought Paul and Silas into 
his house, and "they spake unto him the word of 



BELIEVERS THE ONLY SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 45 

the Lord, and to all that were in his house" Verse 

32. We might infer, from the excitement and im- 
portance of the occasion, that all the jailer's family 
were present; but there is no room left for con- 
jecture. The historian tells us positively that the 
word was preached "to all that were in the house." 
What was the result of this instruction? The 
jailer, in the "same hour of the night, * * * 
was baptized, he and all his, straightway." Verse 

33. That there might be no possible plea for infant 
baptism found in this narrative, the inspired writer 
adds: "He (the jailer) brought them (Paul and 
Silas) into his house, * * * and rejoiced, be- 
lieving in God, with all his house." Verse 34. It 
is incomprehensible to us that any man of intelli- 
gence and candor should doubt that the Vs 
family were converts to Christianity. There is pre- 
cisely the same evidence of their conversion that 
there is of his. Did he hear the word of the Lord? 
So did they. Did he believe in Christ? So did 
they. Was he baptized? So were they. The whole 
narrative corresponds with the apostolic commis- 
sion and practice in Jerusalem and Caesarea. The 
order observed was instruction, faith, baptism. The 
ingenious reasoner who can derive authority for 
infant baptism from this narrative can find it any- 
where. 

Only the baptism of Lydia's household remains to 
be considered. Acts xvi. 14, 15: "A certain woman 
named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of 
Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us; whose 



46 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the 
things which were spoken of Paul. And when she 
was baptized, and her household," &c. Were there 
infants in Lydia's family? The burden of proof 
lies on the advocates of pedobaptism, who would 
derive authority for their practice from this pas- 
sage. We have shown incontrovertibly, as it seems 
to us, that in three baptized households there were 
no children, or that they were not included among 
the baptized. Does not this fact create a strong 
presumption that there were none in Lydia's house? 
We will perform, however, a work of super- 
erogation. While we cannot positively prove that 
Lydia had no infant children, we can show the 
extreme improbability that she had any. She was 
a dealer in purple goods, of the city of Thyatira, in 
the province of Asia, several hundred miles distant 
from Philippi. She was probably an adventurer, 
with no permanent home. She, it is likely, had no 
husband. She said to Paul and Silas, "Come into 
my house and abide." If she had a husband, he 
seems to have been of no importance in the family. 
If she were married, there is no proof that she 
had children; and if she had children, there is no 
evidence that they were infants or minors. Her 
family probably consisted of the servants and help- 
ers in her mercantile shop. When Paul and Silas 
were released from prison, and forced hastily to 
leave the city, they "entered into the house of 
Lydia; and when they had seen the brethren, they 
comforted them and departed." Verse 40. Who 



BELIEVERS THE ONLY SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 47 

were these brethren in Lydia's house? They were 
not infants or young children, but persons capable 
of receiving religious consolation and encourage- 
ment. If there were nothing to bias the mind, it 
would be almost impossible to avoid the conclusion 
that the brethren referred to were Lydia's baptized 
household. If infant baptism has no better founda- 
tion than the probability that there were infants in 
the family of Lydia, and that they were baptized, it 
ought to be abandoned. 

Let us test the strength of the argument drawn 
from the baptism of households in support of infant 
baptism by a parallel case. There were believing 
as well as baptized households. Of the nobleman 
of Cana it is said: "Himself believed, and his 
whole house." Jno. iv. 53. We read: "Crispus, 
the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the 
Lord, with all his house." Acts xviii. 8. What 
would we think of the acumen of a logician who 
should reason after this manner: We read in the 
Scriptures of believing families; infants are found 
in most families; therefore, in the* apostolic times, 
infants believed the gospel. The conclusion is a 
manifest absurdity, and consequently nobody rea- 
sons in that way; but the argument is quite as 
logical and the inference quite as conclusive as 
that which attempts to deduce infant baptism from 
the baptism of households. 

The argument in favor of infant baptism derived 
from household baptisms proves quite too much 
for those who employ it. If families are to be 



48 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

baptized on the faith of their parents, why should 
the baptisms be limited to infants? Are not adult 
children, as well as servants, as often found in 
families as infants? If families are to be baptized, 
why not baptize the whole of them? By what au- 
thority is the ordinance limited to infants and little 
children? The jailer "was baptized — he and all 
his." If family connection is a plea for baptism, 
why should it not avail for adults as well as in- 
fants? 

Perhaps it will be said that faith is required 
of adults, in order to their baptism. Certainly it is, 
of those who act on their own responsibility; but 
households, according to the Pedobaptist theory, 
are baptized on the faith and by the authority of 
the parents. If households are to be baptized in 
virtue of their relation to their pious heads, why 
should any portion of the family be excluded from 
the privilege? The Israelites were required to cir- 
cumcise all the males in their families, free and 
bond, at the age of eight days; but if, from any 
cause* the rite was neglected, it was proper to per- 
form it at any period of life. Gen. xvii. 13 and 
Josh. v. 8. Circumcision was a family institution, 
and all its male members were entitled to its bene- 
fits. Baptism is supposed by the advocates of the 
infant rite to be a substitute for circumcision. By 
what plea, then, do they limit the baptism of house- 
holds to the baptism of infants? That is not house- 
hold baptism. It is the baptism of a part, usually 
a small part, and that, too, the least important part, 
of the family; and the discrimination, so far as we 
can discern, is arbitrarily made. 



BELIEVERS THE ONLY SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 49 

CHAPTER V. 
Believers the Only Subjects of Baptism. 

A popular argument in support of infant baptism 
is drawn from the Abrahamic covenant and the 
rite of circumcision. It is said: God entered into 
covenant with Abraham, and required him to have 
his male children circumcised as a sign or token 
of the covenant; that it is still in force; that bap- 
tism, under the new dispensation, is the sign of the 
covenant, as circumcision formerly was; that the 
sign should be applied to the children of believers, 
as circumcision was applied to Abraham and his 
descendants; and that baptism should be adminis- 
tered to female as well as male children, because 
the ordinance is suited to both sexes. 

Let us examine this subject. When Abram was 
ninety years old, God entered into a covenant with 
him. Among its provisions, on God's part, Abra- 
ham was to have a numerous progeny — to "be "a 
father of many nations"; kings were to come of 
him; the covenant was to be established with his 
seed, to be "an everlasting covenant"; the land of 
Canaan, in which he was a stranger, was to be 
given to him and to his seed "for an everlasting pos- 
session," and that God would be their God. 
Abram — whose name was then changed to Abra- 
ham — was, on his part, bound to walk before God 
and be perfect, and, in token of the covenant, to 
circumcise every male child, eight days old, born in 
4 



50 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

his house or bought with his money. Gen. xvii. 
1-14. This sign or seal was to be perpetuated in 
the family of Abraham. It was a visible, enduring 
mark in the flesh, testifying what God had promised 
to the patriarch, and what he required of him and 
his posterity. Is baptism a token of this covenant? 
Does it certify that Abraham should have a nu- 
merous progeny? that kings should descend from 
him? that his posterity should possess the land of 
Canaan? If we did not know that pious and in- 
telligent men have insisted that baptism is a token 
of this covenant, we should suppose that the opinion 
did not come within the range of human credulity. 
Let us consider this matter further. Moses in- 
corporated circumcision among the statutes that 
he gave to Israel. Lev. xii. 3. The rite has been 
observed by the descendants of Israel, in the line 
of Judah — that is, the Jews — down to the present 
time. It is maintained by them as a family dis- 
tinction, and a token that they worship the God of 
Abraham. Is baptism a substitute for this family 
or national rite? The Scriptures give us no inti- 
mation of the substitution. No Jew was admitted 
to Christian privileges in virtue of his circumcis- 
ion. There are great and irreconcilable differences 
between circumcision and baptism. Their subjects' 
are different. Circumcision was administered only 
to the male descendants of Abraham and to the 
male slaves born in their families or bought with 
their money; baptism was administered to penitent 
believers, of all nations and of both sexes. The 



BELIEVERS THE ONLY SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 51 

time of their administration differed. Circumcis- 
ion was administered to infants, by express com- 
mand, when eight days old; baptism was adminis- 
tered to its subjects at any age and when conveni- 
ence permitted. Acts viii. 36, 38. Circumcision 
was administered, not officially by priests, but by 
parents or masters; baptism was administered, not 
by parents, but by apostles or ministers of the gos- 
pel. No moral quality was required in order to 
circumcision (Josh. v. 1, 2); repentance and faith 
were the invariable prerequisites of baptism (Matt, 
iii. 7, 9. The design of the two rites was entirely 
different. Circumcision was a token in the flesh of 
the covenant in which God promised to Abraham 
and his posterity both temporal and spiritual bless- 
ings, on condition of their devotion to his service; 
baptism is a symbol of the resurrection of Christ 
and of the remission of sins. Rom. vi. 4; Acts xxii. 
16. In short, circumcision belonged to the cere- 
monial dispensation, and passed away with its vari- 
ous sacrifices and bloody rites; and baptism is a 
gospel ordinance, to be perpetuated to the end of 
time. Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. 

That there may be resemblances traced between 
circumcision and baptism, need not be denied. 
There are not two things in nature which do not 
bear a likeness to each other. There are no two 
rites in all the systems of religion, true or false, 
which do not have a resemblance to each other. 
But what of that? Water and fire resemble each 
other; but one cannot be substituted for the other. 



52 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

Various resemblances may be pointed out between 
circumcision and baptism; but the latter differs so 
widely from the former in all its essential charac- 
teristics that, to infer the subjects of baptism from 
those of circumcision, is illogical and fallacious. 

The onus prooandi lies on those who affirm that 
baptism is a substitute for circumcision. We are 
not required to prove a negative. We will, how- 
ever, in this case, come as near to doing it as possi- 
ble to miss it. No subject caused the early churches 
so much perplexity and trouble as the introduction 
of Gentile converts into them without circumcision. 
The Jewish Christians were very zealous in support 
of the rite. They had received it from the fathers, 
it was incorporated among their national ceremo- 
nies, and was held in the highest estimation by all 
the Israelites. The introduction of Gentiles into 
the churches without this sacred and venerated 
rite seemed to these Jewish Christians to be a dese- 
cration and an outrage. They taught that, except 
men were circumcised after the manner of Moses, 
they could not be saved. Repentance, faith, bap- 
tism, holy lives, could avail them nothing, without 
circumcision. There was dissension and disputa- 
tion among the brethren on this subject. A council 
was called in the city of Jerusalem to consider the 
matter and give their opinion concerning it, for the 
guidance of the churches. The convention con- 
sisted of the apostles, and elders, and the whole 
church. The believing Pharisees maintained "that 
it was needful to circumcise" the Gentile converts, 



BELIEVERS THE ONLY SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 53 

"and to command them to keep the law of Moses." 
The subject underwent a full discussion, in which 
Peter (the apostle, not Pope), Barnabas, Paul, and 
James participated. The council reached the con- 
clusion that circumcision was not obligatory on 
Gentile believers. It was a burden which God had 
not laid upon them. 

The discussion and the decision of the council 
contained not the slightest reference to the substi- 
tution of baptism for circumcision. We will not 
affirm that, admitting the substitution was divinely- 
required, it was impossible that the discussion 
should have occurred without an allusion to it. We 
know not the limit of possibilities. We will, how- 
ever, say that, under the circumstances, it seems 
to us extremely improbable, conceding the divine 
authority of the substitution, that it was not men- 
tioned as an important element in the settlement 
of the matter. Consider the facts of the case. The 
question was whether it was necessary to circum- 
cise the Gentile converts. They had been baptized, 
and, if baptism was a substitute for circumcision, 
they had been virtually circumcised. This expla- 
nation would have satisfied the Gentiles, and, at 
least, have silenced the Pharisees. Indeed, it was 
absolutely necessary to an understanding of the 
matter in debate. Is it reasonable to suppose, does 
it come within the scope of credibility, that Peter 
and Barnabas, Paul and James, should have pub- 
licly discussed this perplexing subject without the 
slightest reference to the principle that would have 



54 BAPTIST PEINCIPLES RESET. 

freed it from all difficulty? We do not believe that 
they did. The matter is all plain when we sup- 
pose that the council, under the inspiration of the 
Holy Ghost, knew nothing of the substitution of 
baptism for circumcision. They could not have 
learned it from the Scriptures, and, if they learned 
it from direct inspiration, they failed to record it 
for the benefit of future generations. 

Several passages of Scripture have been quoted 
in support of infant baptism, which we need not 
examine. A careful attention to their contexts will 
show their irrelevancy to the subject; or an exami- 
nation of the comments of candid and learned Pedo- 
baptists will usually disclose the same truth. These 
texts do not mention infant baptism, or refer to it, 
or reveal any principle which can logically lead 
to it. 

Infant baptism seems to be a harmless rite. It 
appeals strongly to parental affection, is invested 
with poetic charms, and refers for its support to a 
venerable antiquity, and to the number, learning, 
and respectability of its advocates. What harm, it 
is asked* can a rite so simple, appropriate, and 
beautiful do to the child or its parents? The influ- 
ence of pedobaptism, in this country, has been 
greatly modified by the prevalence of Baptist views. 
In many places and some religious sects it has 
fallen greatly into desuetude. If the rite is not 
neglected, it is observed as an empty ceremony. It 
has no regenerating and no sin-cleansing efficacy. 
In four-fifths of the Christian world, however, in- 



BELIEVERS THE ONLY SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 55 

fant baptism is viewed in a very different light. It 
is held and practised as a regenerating, sin-purify- 
ing ordinance. This doctrine is taught without 
equivocation and without reservation. Infants, 
born in sin, are supposed to be renewed in nature 
and delivered from guilt by the application of a 
few drops of water, in the name of the Father, Son, 
and Holy Spirit, by a duly qualified priest, or, in 
cases of necessity, by parents, physicians, or nurses. 
The regenerated child is made a member of the 
mystical body of Christ and an inheritor of the 
kingdom of heaven. He grows up in the church. 
His membership is perpetuated by the rite of con- 
firmation. 

To this system we have grave and weighty objec- 
tions. It finds no countenance in the oracles of 
God. We read, indeed, in a book containing many 
excellent truths and precepts, that by baptism in- 
fants are regenerated, made members of the mysti- 
cal body of Christ, and inheritors of the kingdom of 
heaven; but we find no such teaching in the Scrip- 
tures. The tendency of this doctrine has been, in 
all ages and in all countries, to obliterate the dis- 
tinction betwaen the church and the world. In 
almost every land where pedobaptism has enjoyed 
uncontrolled sway, the limits of the church and 
the world have been coextensive. All the infidelity, 
corruption, and blasphemy of the people have been 
within the church. Its discipline has been over- 
thrown, or exercised only in regard to those who 
have questioned its authority. The Romish and 



56 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

Grecian hierarchies, wherever they have been estab- 
lished, have confirmed these statements; and 
Protestant hierarchies, though restrained by the 
influence of dissent in their tendency, have quite 
clearly exemplified the same remarks. 

The influence of the doctrine of baptismal regene- 
ration is even worse on individuals than on com- 
munities. Persons who grow up under the persua- 
sion that they are regenerated, children of God, and 
inheritors of his kingdom, are laboring under a 
perilous delusion. They misconceive the plan of 
human redemption. They cherish a hope that 
neither Scripture nor reason can sanction. They 
vainly imagine that they have some claim to divine 
mercy, some advantages for securing salvation, that 
others have not. Will not this persuasion inevi- 
tably beget a false peace, inspire a deceptive hope, 
and tend to prevent repentance unto life? Parents, 
too, must have less solicitude for the salvation of 
their children, as they have been placed within the 
limit of the covenant and made heirs of the 
heavenly kingdom. 



ONLY IMMERSION IS BAPTISM. 57 

CHAPTER VI. 
Only Immersion is Baptism. 

The inspired writers use only one term, with its 
derivatives, to denote the act required by the ordi- 
nance under consideration. That word, it has been 
elsewhere stated, as expressed in Roman letters and 
changed in form to suit the English idiom, is bap- 
tize. What does it mean? 

Some writers maintain, and multitudes of peo- 
ple believe, that baptize signifies equally to sprinkle, 
to pour, or to immerse. We will not affirm that a 
word might not be employed with a meaning so 
comprehensive and yet so indefinite. We have no 
knowledge of any such term. There is certainly no 
such word in the English tongue. If there is any 
such term in any language, modern or ancient, it 
has not come to our knowledge. We do not per- 
ceive what use could be made of so vague a word. 
Sprinkling, pouring, and immersing are entirely 
distinct acts, and are never confounded in human 
conception. Terms to express these different acts 
are needed in the intercourse of society, and are 
found, we doubt not, in all languages; but a word 
denoting them all would not only be a nondescript, 
but tend merely to confuse or mislead. If baptize 
means sprinkle or pour, it does not mean immerse. 

Other persons insist that baptize signifies neither 
sprinkle, pour, nor immerse, but wash or cleanse; 
that it denotes an effect, not an act. This defini- 



58 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

tion will be found to be utterly irreconcilable with 
the inspired use of the term. 

"We maintain that baptize means immerse or dip, 
and that, like these terms, though it may be used in 
a figurative sense, it invariably has reference to its 
primary import. To learn the meaning of the word, 
let us go, not to lexicons, but to the common ver- 
sion of the Scriptures. We decline an appeal to 
lexicons, not because we have any dread of the re- 
sult, but because we wish to present an argument 
in support of our views that may be fully under- 
stood and appreciated by every intelligent reader 
of the Scriptures. 

It must be borne in mind that the translators 
of the English version were Pedobaptists, and, 
either from the order of King James or their own 
views of propriety, failed to translate the Greek 
term baptizo, with its cognates, used in the Scrip- 
tures to denote the act required by the ordinance. 
We must, therefore, learn its meaning from its 
various connections in the New Testament. 

We may infer the import of baptism from the 
places of its administration. John, having re- 
ceived his commission to baptize from heaven, com- 
menced preaching "the baptism of repentance for 
the remission of sins"; and "then went out unto 
him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, 
and were all "baptized of him in the river Jordan" 
Mk. i. 5. No intelligent person, reading this pas- 
sage with an unbiassed mind, would have any doubt 
that these multitudes were immersed in the river. 



ONLY IMMERSION IS BAPTISM. 59 

To suppose that they went into the stream merely 
to have water sprinkled or poured upon them, is, in 
our view, a puerility undeserving a reply. 

Read again : "John was baptizing in JEnon, near 
to Salim, because there was much water there; and 
they came and were baptized." Jno. iii. 23. The 
necessity of "much water" for the purpose of im- 
mersing is quite plain; but it was not needed for 
sprinkling or pouring. It is said, however, by the 
advocates of sprinkling, that great multitudes at- 
tended the ministry of John, and that "much 
water" was needed to quench their thirst and that 
of their beasts. This is not what the evangelist 
says. His words are, not that John was preaching 
or encamped at iEnon, because there was "much 
water" there, but that "John was baptizing in 
Mnon, because there was much water there:' If 
language can make anything clear, it is plain that 
John baptized in ^Enon on account of its furnishing 
an ample supply of water for the purpose. 

It is sometimes said that these passages refer to 
John's baptism, and not to Christian baptism. This 
is true; but we are simply inquiring for the mean- 
ing of the word baptize. The thing which John 
did, Christ commanded his apostles to do. If he 
immersed, they immersed. It can hardly be sup- 
posed that the meaning of the word "baptize" was 
changed in the short period from the commence- 
ment of John's ministry to the beginning of the 
apostolic ministry. 

The baptism of the jailer and his family, at 



60 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

Philippi, is supposed by some to furnish proof that 
the rite was administered by sprinkling or pouring. 
He was baptized, it is said, in the prison, at night, 
without previous preparation for the administra- 
tion of the ordinance, and it is not probable that 
there was any convenience in the jail for immer- 
sion. This argument cannot rise above probability. 
There might have been ample means for immer- 
sion. If the word "baptize" means immerse, there 
is nothing in this case to create the slightest doubt 
that the jailer and his family were immersed. On 
the contrary, the recorded facts furnish strong 
probability in favor of their immersion. The jailer, 
alarmed by an earthquake, brought Paul and Silas 
"out" — doubtless out of the "inner prison" — and 
inquired for the way of salvation. "And they spake 
unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were 
in his house." This teaching clearly occurred in 
the jailer's house — probably a portion of the prison 
set apart for his occupancy. In the same hour of 
the night, he "was baptized, he and all his, straight- 
way." Now, notice, after the baptism, he "brought 
them into his house." Yv'hy had they left it? If 
the baptism had been sprinkling or pouring, there 
would have been no need for going out of it. Im- 
:mersion, in all probability, rendered it necessary 
to leave the jailer's house, and, the ordinance hav- 
ing been administered, the company very naturally 
returned to the house for refreshments. Acts xvi. 
25-34. 

The meaning of the word "baptize" is clearly in- 



ONLY IMMERSION IS BAPTISM. 61 

dicated by the import of the prepositions used in 
connection with it. Notice the following passages: 
"Baptized in Jordan" — Matt. iii. 6; "Jesus, when 
he was baptized, went up straightway out of the 
water" — verse 16; "They went down both into the 
water, ooth Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized 
him; and when they were come up out of the 
water," &c. The prepositions used in these texts 
are in perfect harmony with the practice of immer- 
sion, but are utterly discordant with that of sprink- 
ling or pouring. The unbiassed mind, in reading 
these passages, would never imagine that baptism 
was anything but immersion. 

The attempt has been made to weaken the force 
of this argument by appealing to the ambiguity 
of the Greek prepositions contained in these Scrip- 
tures. That they were used with considerable lati- 
tude and indefiniteness need not be denied. It must 
be conceded, however, that the best Pedobaptist 
scholars have translated the prepositions as we have 
them in the above passages. So far as we know, 
there is not a respectable version of the Scriptures 
in the English tongue in which these prepositions 
are not rendered substantially as in the common 
version. 

There is, however, in this version a notable ex- 
ception to the rendering of the preposition under 
consideration. We read in Matt. iii. 11: "I in- 
deed baptize you with water unto repentance." 
This preposition cannot be well construed with im- 
merse. It would be awkward and bad English to 



62 B£OT13T 'P&IHCTPLES RESET. 

say, "I immerse with water." The language, "I 
sprinkle you with water," sounds well; but it would 
be intolerable to say, "I pour you with water." 

It seems strange that the Greek preposition en, 
which in the 6th verse is rendered in — "in Jor- 
dan" — should in the 11th verse be translated with — 
"with water." Uniformity of translation is desira- 
ble, if not forbidden by the sense of Scripture. In 
these passages, there is nothing to prevent a uni- 
form rendering. It would be incongruous to say 
"with Jordan"; but it is in perfect harmony and 
good taste to translate the passages "in Jordan" 
and "in water." Dr. George Campbell, of Edin- 
burgh, a learned Presbyterian divine, and president 
of Marischal College, not only translates the pas- 
sage "in water and in the Holy Ghost," but makes 
the following comments on the subject: 

"All the modern translations from the Greek 
which I have seen render the words as our common 
version does, except Le Clerc, who says, dans V 
eau — dans le Saint Esprit. I am sorry to observe 
that the Popish translators from the Vulgate have 
shown greater veneration for the style of that ver- 
sion than the generality of Protestant translators 
have shown for that of the original; for in this 
the Latin is not more explicit than the Greek. Yet 
so inconsistent are the interpreters last mentioned 
that none of them have scrupled to render en to 
Jordane, in the 6th verse, in Jordan, though nothing 
can be plainer than that, if there be any incon- 
gruity in the expression in water, this in Jordan 



ONLY IMMERSION IS BAPTISM. 63 

must be equally incongruous. But they have seen 
that the preposition in could not be avoided there, 
without adopting a circumlocution, and saying with 
the water of Jordan, which would have made their 
deviation from the text too glaring. The word 
• baptizein (baptize), both in sacred authors and in 
classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse, 
and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the 
Latin fathers, tingere, the term used for dyeing 
cloth, which was by immersion. It is always con- 
strued suitably to this meaning. Thus it is en 
udati (in water), en to Jordane (in Jordan). But 
I should not lay much stress on the preposition en, 
* * * which may denote with as well as in, did 
not the whole phraseology in regard to this cere- 
mony concur in evincing the same thing. * * * 
When the Greek word baptizo is adopted, I may 
say, rather than translated, into modern languages, 
the mode of construction ought to be preserved, so 
far as may conduce to suggest its original import. 
It is to be regretted that we have so much evidence 
that even good and learned men allow their judg- 
ments to be warped by the sentiments and customs 
of the sect which they prefer. The true partisan, 
of whatever denomination, always inclines to cor- 
rect the diction of the Spirit by that of the party." — 
"The Four Gospels," Boston Edition, Vol. IV., pages 
23, 24. 



64 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

CHAPTER VII. 
Only Immersion is Baptism. 

Another proof of our proposition may be derived 
from the incidental and figurative references to 
baptism in the Scriptures. Several of these claim 
our notice. 

Baptism is a burial. "We are," says Paul, "buried 
with him (Jesus Christ) by baptism into death." 
Rom. vi. 4. This language is figurative; but it 
must have reference to the import of the word "bap- 
tism." There is a resemblance between immersion 
and a burial, clear to every intelligent mind. In 
either case the body is covered, concealed. A burial 
by sprinkling is a thing unknown. It would, in- 
deed, be possible to bury" a body by the sprinkling 
of earth; but how could it be buried by the sprink- 
ling of water? A conception so unnatural and gro- 
tesque surely never found a lodgment in the brain 
of the pupil of Gamaliel. A burial by pouring water 
is little less wild and improbable; while a burial 
by washing or cleansing is a simple absurdity. 
But, supposing — what Dr. Doddridge says it is the 
part of candor to admit — that there is in the lan- 
guage "an allusion to the manner of baptizing by 
immersion, as most usual (universal, as we main- 
tain) in these early times," the figure is plain, 
striking, and impressive. 

It is asserted by some, in their efforts to weaken 
the argument drawn from this text in favor of im- 



ONLY IMMERSION IS BAPTISM. 65 

mersion, that the baptism referred to was not 
literal, but spiritual. Our only present use for the 
text is to prove that baptism is immersion. It 
serves our purpose quite as well whether it be in- 
terpreted literally or spiritually. Paul, who was a 
master of language, and guided by the Spirit of 
inspiration, called baptism a burial; which figure 
is clear, pertinent, and instructive, if baptism means 
immersion, but forced, meaningless, and misleading, 
if it signifies sprinkling, pouring, or cleansing. 

Washing is an effect of baptism. "Arise," said 
Ananias to Saul of Tarsus, "and be baptized, and 
wash away thy sins." Acts xxii. 16. Washing is 
not an effect of sprinkling. The conception of 
washing by sprinkling is unnatural. It may be 
used to moisten or soften, but not to wash. Wash- 
ing may be an effect of pouring; but the text cannot 
be construed in harmony with this term. It is an 
obvious absurdity to say: "Arise, and be poured, 
and wash away thy sins." A man can be poured 
upon, but only liquids or solids in dust or grains 
can be poured. The language, "Arise, and be im- 
mersed, and wash away thy sins," is in perfect har- 
mony with our conceptions of the effect of immer- 
sion. We immerse for the purpose of washing. 
The removal of filth is the usual consequence of 
immersion. 

Baptism denotes overwhelming distress and suf- 
fering. "I have," said Jesus, "a baptism to be bap- 
tized with; and how am I straitened (or pained) 
till it be accomplished!" Lu. xii. 50. It is evident 
5 



QQ BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

from the context that the Saviour had reference in 
this language to his approaching sufferings and 
death. He calls them, figuratively, a baptism — an 
immersion. The figure is natural, common, and 
impressive. We speak of overwhelming sufferings, 
of being drowned in sorrow, and of being immersed 
in cares. Everybody perfectly understands the lan- 
guage. Jesus called his sufferings a baptism be- 
cause of their severity. The same conception of 
sufferings is expressed by the Psalmist in different 
language: "Then the waters had overwhelmed us, 
the stream had gone over our soul; then the proud 
waters had gone over our soul." Psa. cxxiv. 4, 5. 
Dr. Campbell, the learned Pedobaptist already re- 
ferred to, thus translates the text: "I have an im- 
mersion to undergo; and how am I pained till it 
be accomplished!" The thought is solemn and 
\ffecting. The Saviour said, in anticipation of his 
sufferings on the cross: "I have an immersion to 
undergo" — I am to be overwhelmed in sorrow and 
in sufferings; and I am "pained" — filled with 
anxiety and grief — till the fearful trial is over. 
How tame and unmeaning, not to say incongruous, 
does the text become, if it be rendered: "I have a 
pouring, or sprinkling, or cleansing to undergo." 
Who would think of representing the sufferings of 
the Saviour by sprinkling a few drops of water 
on the face or pouring a cupful of water on the 
head? To call the sufferings of Christ a washing 
or cleansing, would be a grievous offence against 
taste. 



ONLY IMMEESION IS BAPTISM. 67 

Some writers, to evade the force of this passage 
in favor of immersion, have maintained that the 
Saviour was baptized by his own sweat and blood. 
His sufferings are, in several passages of Scripture, 
described as the shedding of his blood. Matt. xxvi. 
28; Heb. ix. 22. By a common figure of speech, a 
part is put for the whole, or the effect for the cause. 
The shedding of Christ's blood was a notable part 
of his sufferings, and the cause, or one of the 
causes, of his death. It would not have been 
strange, if, in anticipation of his sufferings, he 
had described them as a blood-shedding; but to 
call them a sprinkling or a pouring has no sanction, 
so far as we are informed, from analogy, and 
greatly weakens and obscures the sense of the pas- 
sage. How much more in accordance with its in- 
tent and force is the comment of Lange: "To be 
baptized — An image of the intensity of his suffer- 
ing, like a baptism performed by immersion." 

Baptism is a covering. "Our fathers * * * 
were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the 
sea." 1 Cor. x. 2. This was not a literal, but a 
figurative baptism. There was a resemblance be- 
tween the passage of the children of Israel through 
the Red Sea and immersion. It is plain to every 
discerning mind. In both cases there was a cover- 
ing up, a shutting in. Dr. Whitby, an Episcopalian, 
who cannot be suspected of any partiality for Bap- 
tist views, describes it: "They were baptized unto 
Moses in the cloud; i. e., into the doctrine taught 
by Moses; for the cloud was not only for direction, 



68 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

but for a covering over them, according to the 
words of the Psalmist, 'He spread out the cloud for 
a covering.' Psa. cv. 29. And in the sea — for they 
were covered with the sea on both sides. Ex. xiv. 
22. So that both the cloud and the sea had some 
resemblance to our being covered with water in 
baptism. Their going into the sea resembled the 
ancient rite of going into the water." 

Dr. McKnight, the learned Scotch commentator, 
though less explicit in his language than Dr. 
Whitby, evidently put the same interpretation on 
the passage. He says: "In the cloud and in the 
sea. Because the Israelites, by being hid from the 
Egyptians under the cloud, and by passing through 
the Red Sea, were made to declare their belief in 
the Lord and in his servant Moses (Ex. xiv. 31), 
the apostle very properly represents them as 'bap- 
tized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.' " 

This sense of the passage commends itself to the 
enlightened and impartial mind. Another interpre- 
tation, however, is given to it, in the interest of 
sprinkling or pouring. The Israelites, it is main- 
tained, were baptized by the sprinkling or pouring 
of water from the cloud, and by spray from the 
sea. This exposition demands the change of the 
common rendering of the Greek preposition en from 
in to oy — a change which it admits, but which is 
sanctioned by no translator within our reach. This 
change, however, will avail the advocates of sprink- 
ling but little. The interpretation is inconsistent 
with the history of the case. God wrought a mira- 



ONLY IMMERSION IS BAPTISM. 69 

cle to deliver his people from the power of the 
Egyptians. "The Lord went before them by day in 
a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by 
night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go 
by day and night." Ex. xiii. 21. The cloud and fire 
were a symbol of the divine presence, designed to 
cover and guide, and not to sprinkle, the escaping 
Israelites. Nor were they moistened by the spray 
of the sea. "The Lord caused the sea to go back by 
a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea 
dry land, and the waters were divided." Ex. xiv. 
22. It would certainly have derogated from the 
completeness of the miracle and the glory of God, 
had they reached the eastern shore of the sea 
drenched with showers and bedraggled with mud. 
The miracle was dishonored by no such imperfec- 
tion. "The children of Israel walked upon dry land 
in the midst of the sea, and the waters were a wall 
unto them on their right hand and on their left." 
Verse 29. This was undoubtedly a dry baptism, but 
a figurative one. The person who can find sprink- 
ling, pouring, or cleansing in this baptism will have 
no difficulty ih finding it anywhere. The servant 
of James Hervey, the author of "Meditations Among 
the Tombs," said hip master could make a sermon 
out of a pair of ton^s, and no doubt he could. It 
does not, however, require half the ingenuity to 
make a sermon on a pair of tongs that is demanded 
to extract water baptism from the pillar of a cloud 
and the sea walls that protected the Israelites in 
their escape from Egypt. 



70 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

We will notice a passage, of the class of Scrip- 
tures under consideration, relied on by many in the 
defence of sprinkling or pouring. "He (Jesus) 
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and fire." 
Matt. iii. 11. Nothing, beyond a fair translation, is 
needed for the understanding of this text. The 
attentive reader has already seen that Dr. Camp- 
bell not only renders the language "i» the Holy 
Ghost and fire," but expresses his surprise that the 
translators of King James should have abandoned 
the ordinary sense of the preposition (en), which 
they were compelled to accept in the 6th verse. 
The best, we think, that can be said in favor of the 
common version is that the particle may "be ren- 
dered with. In the first ten chapters of Matthew, 
en occurs about ninety-five times. In seventy-four 
places it is rendered in, or by terms of equivalent 
import; in sixteen passages it is translated by other 
words, and only in five places by with. The almost 
uniform import of the preposition seems to have 
made it obligatory on the translators not to depart 
from it without necessity. In the 11th verse the 
necessity did not exist. Lange, in his commentary, 
agrees with Dr. Campbell as to its proper rendering. 
He says: "Verse 11. He shall "baptize, or immerse, 
you in the Holy Ghost and in fire." 

The language is figurative; but its import is 
clear. When it is affirmed that a man is immersed 
in cares, or politics, or debt, or trouble, nobody has 
any doubt as to the meaning of the words. A man 
is immersed in cares when they absorb his thoughts 



ONLY IMMERSION IS BAPTISM. 71 

and occupy his time. A man is immersed in the 
Spirit when he is fully under the influence of the 
Spirit — is enlightened, strengthened, guided, and 
endowed with extraordinary gifts by him. Baptism 
in the Spirit denotes that wonderful communica- 
tion of the Spirit by which the apostles and their 
colaborers were fitted for their important mission. 

It is maintained by the advocates of pouring and 
sprinkling that the baptism of the Holy Ghost was 
by pouring. In support of this view, several pas- 
sages are quoted: "Having received of the Father 
the promise of the Holy Ghost, he (Jesus) hath 
shed forth this which ye now see and hear." Acts 
ii. 33. "On the Gentiles was poured out the gift 
of the Holy Ghost." Acts x. 45. "The Holy Ghost 
fell on them, as on us at the beginning." Acts xi. 
15. These expressions, "shed forth," "poured out," 
and "fell on," denote the manner of the copious 
communication of the Spirit and his gifts; but they 
do not describe the baptism of the Spirit. That was 
the result of this abundant communication of the 
Spirit. He was "shed forth," "poured out," "fell," 
in such great measure that those who received the 
gift were not only filled with the Spirit, but im- 
mersed in him — brought entirely under his influ- 
ence, as a body covered with water is saturated with 
it. The baptism of the Holy Ghost has no reference 
to the manner of his communication, whether it be 
by shedding, pouring, or falling; but to his abun- 
dant influence. The apostles were immersed in the 
Holy Spirit just as a guinea would be immersed in 
a vessel filled by water poured into it. 



72 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

CHAPTER VIII. 
Only Immersion is Baptism. 

The word "immerse" and its derivatives may be 
substituted for "baptise" and its derivatives in 
every place where they occur in the New Testament, 
making good sense, without the slightest incon- 
gruity or violence to the language; and this is not 
true of the term "sprinkling, pouring, washing, or 
cleansing." 

When we insert a key in a lock, and it fits every 
ward and easily turns the bolt, we know that we 
have the right key. Just so it is in the definition 
of a word. If it is properly defined, the definition 
may be put in every place in which the word is 
rightly used, without force or bad taste; but, if the 
definition is incorrect, while it may be substituted 
in many sentences for the original term without 
obvious inaccuracy, it cannot be so substituted in 
an extensive use of the term without bad taste, 
ambiguity, or nonsense. To this principle of lan- 
guage, so far as we know, there is no exception. 
Let us subject the definitions of the word "baptize" 
to this test. The process may lead to the repeti- 
tion of statements made in preceding articles; but 
its importance will justify the operation. 

"And were all baptized of him in the river Jor- 
dan" Mark i. 5. It is obvious that pouring can- 
didates in the river is not good English. That word 
must stand aside. 




JOHN ALBERT BROADl'S, D. D., I V I V .D. 

1827-1895 

Professor in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1 859-1889. 

President of the same Institution, 1889-1895. 



ONLY IMMERSION IS BAPTISM. 73 

"Buried with him in baptism" Col. ii. 12. 
Buried in sprinkling, or in pouring, or in washing, 
or in cleansing, are all barbarisms. These substi- 
tutes for baptism must be ruled out. 

"Be baptized and wash away thy sins." Acts 
xxii. 16. To be sprinkled for the purpose of wash- 
ing is incongruous; but to be washed or cleansed 
for that object is simply preposterous. 

"By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." 
1 Cor. xii. 13. "As many of you as have been bap- 
tized into Christ." Gal. iii. 27. To be sprinkled, 
or poured, or washed, or cleansed into a body, or 
into Christ, is language that no scholar, or writer 
of clear conceptions, would employ. 

By the laws of language, sprinkling, pouring, 
washing, and cleansing are equally excluded as 
substitutes for baptism. Immersion is the key that 
fits all the wards of the philological lock, by which 
so many commentators and critics have been need- 
lessly perplexed. Immersion and its cognates will 
substitute baptism and its cognates, through all 
their moods, tenses, and declensions, without co- 
scurity, confusion, or the slightest violence to the 
prepositions and other terms used in connection 
with them. On this point the reader may find con- 
clusive evidence in the Revised Version of the New 
Testament, published by the American Bible Union. 

Immersion was so evidently practised by the 
early Christian churches, except in cases of sick- 
ness or of supposed necessity, it seems strange that 
an intelligent person should deny it. Any num- 
ber of credible witnesses on this point might easily 



74 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

be furnished; but it will be sufficient to present 
two or three quotations — which, for the sake of con- 
venience, we copy from the "Star Book," a valuable 
little treatise on baptism: 

Mosheim: "In this century [the first], baptism 
was administered in convenient places, without the 
public assemblies, and by immersing the candidates 
wholly in water." 

Neander: "In respect to the form of baptism, it 
was, in conformity with the original institution 
and the original import of the symbol, performed 
by immersion, as a sign of entire baptism into the 
Holy Spirit, and of being entirely penetrated by 
the same." 

Waddington : "The sacraments of the primitive 
church were two — that of baptism and the Lord's 
supper. The ceremony of immersion, the oldest 
form of baptism, was performed in the name of the 
three persons of the Trinity." 

Schaff: "Finally, so far as it respects the mode 
and manner of baptizing, there can be no doubt 
that immersion, and not sprinkling, was the origi- 
nal normal form." Star Book, pages 37, 38. 

Not only was immersion practised by the early 
Christian churches, but it has been continued by 
the Greek church, next to the Roman Catholic, the 
largest of all the Christian sects, and containing 
the people who have inherited the language in 
which the New Testament was written, down to the 
present time. Every well-informed person is ac- 



ONLY IMMERSION IS BAPTISM. 75 

quainted with this fact; but we will quote a single 
testimony in proof of it: 

Coleman: "The Eastern church has uniformly 
retained the form of immersion as indispensable to 
the validity of the ordinance; and repeat the rite, 
whenever they have received to their communion 
persons who have been baptized in another man- 
ner." Star Book, page 45. 

The Greek church practises trine immersion, 
which we consider a corruption of the apostolic 
baptism; but this fact does not weaken its testi- 
mony in favor of immersion. The repetition of the 
act might easily grow out of an erroneous interpre- 
tation of the command, "baptizing them in the 
name of the Father, and of the 8 on, and of the Holy 
Ghost"; but we see no reason for changing sprink- 
ling into immersion. All the motives of conveni- 
ence, comfort, and taste draw in the opposite direc- 
tion. 

The Roman Catholic church continued immer- 
sion, except in extreme cases, to the close of the 
thirteenth century. On this point the most abun- 
dant testimony can be furnished. We need quote 
but two authorities: 

Db. Bbennen: "Thirteen hundred years was bap- 
tism generally and originally performed by the im- 
mersion of the person under water, and only in 
extraordinary cases was sprinkling or affusion per- 
mitted. These latter methods were called in ques- 
tion, and even prohibited." 

Augusti: "Immersion in water was general un- 



76 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

til the thirteenth century among the Latins. It 
was then displaced by sprinkling, but retained by 
the Greeks." Star Book, pages 40, 41. 

The English Episcopal church, in its rubric on 
baptism, strictly enjoins that the child shall be 
dipped, unless it be duly certified that it is sickly 
or weak and unable to endure dipping; and in that 
case, pouring or sprinkling may suffice. 

The "baptisteries still preserved in Italy and in 
the East furnish conclusive evidence that immer- 
sion was the practice of the early Christian centu- 
ries. These buildings, some of them dating as far 
back as the third or fourth century, were erected at 
great expense, and were furnished with ample con- 
veniences for immersing adults, as well as infants. 
The fonts are in the centre of the buildings, circu- 
lar in form, three or four feet deep, and sufficiently 
spacious for the immersion of half a dozen adults 
at one time. These structures furnish proof, not 
only that immersion was practised, but of the great 
importance attached to it. No modern church or 
sect has furnished proof of their zeal for immer- 
sion comparable in strength with that given by 
the early Christians in the erection of their bap- 
tisteries. 

If sprinkling was not the primitive baptism, it 
may very properly be asked when and how was it 
introduced. On this subject we quote from the 
Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, which cannot be sus- 
pected of any partiality for Baptists: 

"It is impossible to mark the precise period 



ONLY IMMERSION IS BAPTISM. 77 

when sprinkling was introduced. It is probable, 
however, that it was invented in Africa, in the 
second century, in favor of clinics. But it was so 
far from being approved by the church in general 
that the Africans themselves did not account it 
valid. The first law for sprinkling was obtained in 
the following manner: Pope Stephen III., being 
driven from Rome by Astulphus, king of the Lom- 
bards, in 753, fled to Papin, who, a short time be- 
fore, had usurped the crown of France. Whilst he 
remained there, the monks of Cressy, in Brittany, 
consulted him whether, in a case of necessity, bap- 
tism performed by pouring water on the head of 
the infant would be lawful. Stephen replied that it 
would. But, though the truth of this fact should 
be allowed, which some Catholics deny, yet pouring 
or sprinkling was only admitted in cases of ne- 
cessity. It was not till 1311 that the legislature, 
in a council held at Ravenna, declared immersion 
or sprinkling to be indifferent. In this country 
(Scotland), however, sprinkling was never prac- 
tised, in ordinary cases, until after the Reforma- 
tion; and in England, even in the reign of Edward 
VI., trine immersion — dipping first the right side, 
secondly the left side, and last the face of the in- 
fant — was commonly observed. But, during the 
persecution of Mary, many persons, most of whom 
were Scotsmen, fled from England to Geneva, and 
there greedily imbibed the opinions of that church. 
In 1556, a book was published at that place, con- 
taining The form of prayers and ministration of 



78 BAPTIST PEINCIPLES RESET. 

the sacraments, approved by the famous and godly- 
learned man, John Calvin/ in which the administra- 
tor is enjoined to take water in his hand and lay it 
upon the child's forehead. These Scottish exiles, who 
had renounced the authority of the Pope, implicitly 
acknowledged the authority of Calvin; and, return- 
ing to their own country, with Knox at their head, 
in 1559, established sprinkling in Scotland. From 
Scotland this practice made its way into England, 
in the reign of Elizabeth, but was not authorized by 
the Established church. In the Assembly of Di- 
vines, held at Westminster in 1643, it was keenly 
debated whether immersion or sprinkling should 
be adopted. Twenty-five voted for sprinkling and 
twenty-four for immersion ; and even this small ma- 
jority was obtained at the earnest request of Dr. 
Lightfoot, whc had acquired great influence in that 
assembly. Sprinkling is, therefore, the general 
practice of this country. Many Christians, how- 
ever, especially the Baptists, reject it. The Greek 
church universally adhere to immersion." — Art. 
Baptism. 

The origin of sprinkling and pouring for bap- 
tism is of historical interest, and tends to confirm 
the position that "only immersion is baptism." 
They are clearly of post-apostolic origin. Our chief 
reliance, however, for the support of immersion is 
on the import of the word "baptize," as its meaning 
is disclosed in the Scriptures and confirmed by the 
highest lexicographical authority. If, as Moses 
Stuart says — and this country has produced no 



ONLY IMMERSION IS BAPTISM. 79 

scholar more eminent than he was — "all lexi- 
cographers and critics of any note are agreed" that 
"baptizo (baptize) means to dip, plunge, or immerse 
into any liquid," then to baptize by sprinkling or 
pouring is a gross solecism. The incongruity of the 
language appears, if we substitute immerse for bap- 
tize. To immerse by sprinkling is an absurdity. 
To immerse by pouring is equally impossible, if the 
pouring is not sufficiently copious to overwhelm. 
How can a man be immersed by pouring a cup of 
water on his head? 



80 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

CHAPTER IX. 
Only Immersion is Baptism. 

Admitting that baptism means immersion, and 
never sprinkling or pouring — that the apostolic 
baptism was immersion; that immersion was prac- 
tised, except in cases of supposed necessity, for 
several centuries, and that it was generally prac- 
tised till the beginning of the fourteenth century — 
it is maintained by some that it is not essential 
to the validity of the ordinance. The dispensation, 
it is said, is spiritual; ceremonies are of little im- 
portance; baptism is symbolic of a moral cleansing, 
and is equally expressive, whether the candidate 
be immersed or water be applied to him in some 
other way. Immersion is good, but not better than 
sprinkling or pouring, as a sign of purification. 
We have not the work of Professor Moses Stuart 
on baptism before us; but, if our memory is not 
at fault, the above is substantially the ground 
which he occupied in regard to baptism. 

In our view, this is the most plausible argument 
in favor of sprinkling or pouring. It is plausible, 
but not sound. The Greek language had a copious 
variety of words, denoting sprinkling, pouring, 
washing, purifying, wetting, and the like; and yet 
Jesus chose baptize, meaning, as conceded in the 
argument, immerse. Why did he select this word 
to signify the act required in the ordinance? There 
must have been a reason for it, and a good one.. 



ONLY IMMERSION IS BAPTISM. 81 

He was infinitely wise, and righteous, and kind, and 
comprehended perfectly the design of the institu- 
tion, and all the abuses that would be made of it. 
It is noticeable, too, that neither evangelists nor 
apostles ever employ any other term but this or its 
cognates, with reference to the rite. Immersion, 
also, is suited to all climates, all countries, and all 
times. The notion that there are habitable coun- 
tries so dry as to furnish no water for immersion, 
or that there are regions so cold that water can 
neither be found nor prepared for that use, is un- 
worthy of refutation. Immersion may be incon- 
venient, and involve some expense and trouble; but 
what of that? Jesus travelled from Galilee to 
Judea, sixty or seventy miles, probably on foot, to 
be baptized of John in the river Jordan; and shall 
we set aside his command because it is not accord- 
ing to our convenience, or because we imagine that 
something else would suit us better? 

Christ has made no provision for changing the 
ordinance. Neither churches, nor synods, nor gene- 
ral assemblies, nor ecumenical councils, nor pontiffs, 
nor any earthly power, have the shadow of au- 
thority for altering it. It is their province to obey, 
not to legislate. "Ye are my friends," said Jesus, 
"if ye do whatsoever I command you." Roman 
Catholics changed the rite from immersion to 
sprinkling — and, with their views of church power, 
acted consistently; but Protestants, or Christians 
who take the Bible as their standard of practice, 
can have no apology for making such an alteration. 



82 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

Even supposing that churches had authority for 
changing the ordinance, why should they do it? 
Are they wiser than their Lord? Sprinkling and 
pouring, it is said, symbolize moral purification. 
Do they do it better than immersion? Cleansing is 
not all that is symbolized by baptism. It repre- 
sents the death and the resurrection of Christ, and 
conversion under the idea of a resurrection. "Know 
ye not," says Paul, "that so many of us as were bap- 
tized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 
Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism into 
death; that, like as Christ was raised up from the 
dead by the glory of the Father, we shall be also in 
the likeness of his resurrection." Rom. vi. 3, 4. 
All commentators not writing in the defence of 
sprinkling and pouring agree with Archbishop Tillot- 
son in their interpretation of this passage: "An- 
ciently, those who were baptized were immersed, 
and "buried in the water, to represent their death to 
3in; a,nd then did rise up out of the water, to 
signify their entrance upon a new life. And to 
these customs the apostle alludes." Star Book, 
page 29. Now, we ask whether sprinkling or pour- 
ing, by any stretch of the imagination, can be made 
to symbolize a death and resurrection. The only 
reason for changing the ordinance would be simply 
this: Christ deemed immersion proper, and com- 
manded its observance; but we consider it incon- 
venient, if not indelicate — unsuited to the taste and 
refinement of the age — and, therefore, we "abridge 
somewhat its form. ' 



ONLY IMMERSION IS BAPTISM. 83 

We have a few plain and candid general remarks 
to make to sincere believers in Christ: 

Immersion is certainly baptism. This has been 
conceded by all the Christian world, so far as we 
are informed, excepting a few Presbyterians of the 
present century. On this point they confront the 
learning and authority of Christendom. Roman 
Catholics and members of the Greek church, Protest- 
ants, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Calvinists, Metho- 
dists, Congregationalists — all sects, orthodox and 
heterodox, with the exception mentioned, not only 
concede that immersion is "permissible" baptism, 
but, at least, of equal validity with sprinkling or 
pouring. The Greek church, of more than 60,000,< 
000, deny that sprinkling or pouring is baptism 
The English church, with all its learning, enjoins 
dipping, and considers pouring, in exceptional cases, 
merely "permissible." All sects of Baptists main- 
tain the exclusive validity of immersion. Roman 
Catholics, with perfect unanimity, accept sprinkling 
or pouring for baptism on a ground on which every 
consistent Protestant must reject it. Now, we ask 
any candid believer why he should receive sprink- 
ling or pouring for baptism, of whose validity there 
is so much reason to doubt, and reject immersion, 
whose scripturalness is conceded by all Christen- 
dom, except a few modern polemics? In regard to 
his worldly interests, he would not so act. He 
would surely be governed by the commanding 
probability. Should he be less anxious to pursue 
the right course when the honor of his Master and 



84 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

the interests of his kingdom are at stake? We 
think not. 

Baptism is not essential to salvation, and, there- 
fore, it is maintained by some, the manner of its 
observance is of no great importance. We do not 
believe in the essentiality of baptism to salvation. 
On this point Baptists have been much misunder- 
stood and misrepresented. In former times, they 
were censured for conceding the possibility of sal- 
vation without baptism; and in the present day, 
they are blamed for giving it undue prominence and 
importance. The rite may be over-estimated or 
under-estimated with facility. We should aim to 
give it the precise position that it holds in the 
Sacred Scriptures. While we admit that baptism 
is not essential to salvation, we maintain that 
obedience is. Christ is "the author of eternal sal- 
vation unto all them that obey him"; and only 
unto such. Heb. v. 9. Baptism is a divine com- 
mandment, obligatory on all believers. ' It is en- 
forced, not only by the supreme authority, but by 
the winning example of the Son of God. Of persons 
ignorant, or misinstructed, or in doubt, or dilatory 
in regard to the ordinance, we say nothing. We 
leave them in the hands of a righteous Judge. 
Suppose, however, a person professing to trust in 
Christ believes immersion to be divinely com- 
manded, and deliberately and persistently refuses 
to submit to it; can he be saved? We judge not. 
He will be lost, not for the lack of baptism, but be- 
cause his disobedience will demonstrate his want 



ONLY IMMERSION IS BAPTISM. 85 

of faith, and consequently his unregeneracy. His 
rejection of baptism proves his disloyalty to the 
King of kings. 

On this point we do not speak from conjecture, 
but follow the teaching of the divine oracles. "The 
Pharisees and lawyers," we are told, "rejected the 
counsel of God against themselves, being not bap- 
tized of him" (John). Lu. vii. 30. John's baptism 
was "the counsel of God," and those who, in their 
pride and self-sufficiency, rejected it, set themselves 
in opposition to God. The guilt and danger of the 
rejection were doubtless proportionate to their light 
and obstinacy. Are they less guilty, and exposed to 
less peril, who wilfully reject the baptism com- 
manded by Christ, enforced by his example, and 
administered amid the wonders of the day of Pente- 
cost? It is wisest and safest and best to obey 
Christ in all things. 

We have never known a Baptist dissatisfied with 
the manner of his baptism. We have been ac- 
quainted with some who were troubled with doubts 
as to their fitness for the reception of the rite, and 
many more who had cause to lament that their 
lives had been so little in accord with the vows made 
in its reception; but not one, among the multitudes 
who, during a ministry of more than fifty years, 
have consulted us concerning their spiritual per- 
plexities and troubles, has ever expressed any ques- 
tion as to the validity of immersion. Every pious 
Baptist knows that he has been baptized. He re- 
members the time, place, and circumstances of his 



86 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

baptism, and found in it "the answer of a good con- 
science toward God." With Pedobaptists the case is 
very different. Many of them are harassed with 
doubts and fears all their lifetime as to the validity 
of their infant sprinkling. Some are sensitive on 
the subject, and carefully avoid all discussion of it. 
Others seek relief from their troubles in reading 
treatises in favor of infant baptism and in listen- 
ing to the reasonings of their pastors. Not a few, 
after enduring for years the accusations of an un- 
quiet conscience, break away from their early and 
loved religious associates and follow Christ into the 
Jordan. 

We have a question to put to sprinkled believers. 
We do not use this term in disrespect. For many 
of them we entertain the highest regard, and shall 
continue that regard, whatever may be their course 
concerning baptism. Our question is this: If you 
knew that your salvation depended on your being 
baptized precisely according to the command and 
example of Christ, would you trust your sprinkling 
in infancy, or even in your mature age? Many, 
doubtless, would; but multitudes, we are per- 
suaded, would not. We once conversed with a young 
lady, converted under our ministry, on the subject 
of baptism. She had been sprinkled in childhood; 
but her conscience was ill at ease. Before making 
up her mind as to her duty, she desired, very natu- 
rally, to see her pastor. After a few months, we 
saw her again, and inquired: "Miss, have you set- 
tled the question as to your baptism?" "I am per- 



ONLY IMMERSION IS BAPTISM. 87 

fectly satisfied with it," was her reply. "If your 
salvation," we added, "depended on your being bap- 
tized according to the will of Christ, would you be 
satisfied with it?" "I do not believe that my salva- 
tion depends on that," she promptly answered. 
"Very well," we said; "but suppose it did; would 
you be satisfied?" With increased emphasis, she re- 
peated: "I do not believe that it does." It was 
quite clear, had she believed that her salvation de- 
pended on the exact conformity of her baptism to 
the will of Christ, she would not have been satisfied. 
Baptists have great confidence that their views 
of baptism are plainly presented in the Scriptures. 
It is quite common for them to refer young con- 
verts to the Bible to learn their duty in regard to 
baptism. The common version of the New Testa- 
ment, prepared by Pedobaptists, is the best book 
for guiding plain, honest inquirers in reference to 
the ordinance. Do the advocates of sprinkling ever 
direct inquirers for information on the subject of 
baptism to read the Scriptures? We have never 
heard of such a case. We doubt whether one can 
be cited. We judge that it would be decidedly im- 
politic and unsafe for the advocates of sprinkling 
and pouring to refer young converts to the Scrip- 
tures for the solution of their doubts and the guid- 
ance of their conduct in regard to the rite of bap- 
tism. 



88 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES KESET. 

CHAPTER X. 
Communion at the Lord's Table Confined to Churches. 

Baptism and the Lord's supper are alike in being 
instituted or positive rites, deriving their authority 
solely from the will of the Lawgiver. Their ob- 
servance is required, not because they are essen- 
tially right, but they are right because they are 
divinely required. They differ widely, however, in 
several respects. Baptism is an individual duty. 
The command is: "Repent and be baptized every 
one of you." The Lord's supper is a social or eccle- 
siastical duty. This is indicated by the term "com- 
munion," or joint participation, by which it is ex- 
pressed. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is 
it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The 
bread which we break, is it not the communion of 
the body of Christ?" Baptism is a duty not to be 
repeated. Churches may celebrate the Lord's supper 
as often as time and opportunity may permit, and 
inclination may prompt. There is no law prescrib- 
ing how frequently it shall be observed. "As often 
as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do 
show the Lord's death till he come." Baptism is 
preparatory to church membership, as we showed in 
another article. The Lord's supper follows bap- 
tism. To this rule there is no exception. No un- 
baptized person, so far as the Scriptures testify, 
ever partook of the Lord's supper. It was never 
spread but in the Lord's house, and never ap- 



COMMUNION CONFINED TO CHURCHES. 89 

proached except by those formally admitted into his 
family. 

Information concerning the observance of the 
Lord's supper in the primitive churches is not very 
full, but quite sufficient to guide the humble and 
docile. The feast was instituted by the Lord Jesus 
on the night previous to his crucifixion. Only the 
apostles, who constituted the church in its in- 
cipiency, partook of it. That they were baptized 
by John, or by the disciples acting under Christ's 
authority (John iv. 1, 2), there can be no reason- 
able doubt. It is not essential to the validity of our 
argument, however, to show that they were bap- 
tized. The first baptizer was necessarily unbap- 
tized. In the introduction of Christianity, there 
might have been more than one unbaptized ad- 
ministrator of the ordinance, though we do not sup- 
pose there were. In the organization of the 
churches there might have been, and doubtless 
there were, measures adopted, from the necessity 
of the case, which were not intended to be perpetu- 
ated in the regularly constituted churches. 

The place of the Lord's supper in the divine 
economy is clearly indicated in the apostolic com- 
mission. Teaching, faith, baptism, instruction in 
all Christian duties, is the divinely prescribed order 
of service. Faith should precede baptism. The 
first public duty enjoined on a believer is baptism; 
but faith does not more certainly precede baptism 
than does baptism precede church membership and 
communion at the Lord's table. This order is 



90 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

clearly prescribed, and assuredly should be fol- 
lowed, unless some obvious and solid reason can 
be furnished for departing from it. 

On two points we may be certain: The apostles 
understood their commission, and they executed it. 
Their example is, therefore, an authoritative expo- 
sition of it. The first church was organized in the 
city of Jerusalem, and we have a pretty full ac- 
count of its formation and worship furnished by 
the Spirit of inspiration, for the guidance of the 
churches in all ages. Preaching, repentance, bap- 
tism, church membership, the Lord's supper, wor- 
ship, was the order followed. "Then they that 
gladly received his (Peter's) word were baptized — 
were added unto them (the disciples in Jerusa- 
lem) — continued steadfastly in the apostles' doc- 
trine and fellowship (in the teaching of the apostles 
and in co-operation with the church) — and in break- 
ing of bread (communing at the Lord's table, called 
breaking of bread, as that was a noticeable part of 
the service, Acts xx. 7) — and in prayers," or the 
public worship of God. Can there be any reason- 
able doubt that in this primitive, true, model church 
baptism preceded church membership, and church 
membership the breaking of bread? In other 
words, the Lord's table was placed within the 
church, and the unbaptized had no access to it. 

The only other place in which the Lord's supper 
is mentioned in the inspired history is Acts xx. 7: 
"Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples 
came together to break bread, Paul preached unto 



COMMUNION CONFINED TO CHURCHES. 91 

them, ready to depart on the morrow." We have 
here merely an incidental allusion to the Lord's 
supper. It is, however, perfectly accordant with 
what we learn of the ordinance from the Scriptures. 
"The disciples" — doubtless the church — "atTroas" — 
the ancient Troy — "came together to break bread," 
or partake of the Lord's supper. It is fair to con- 
clude that this church was composed, as were all the 
churches of whose membership we are informed, of 
baptized believers. 

There is no distinct reference to the observance 
of the Lord's supper in the apostolic epistles, ex- 
cept in the first letter to "the church of God" at 
Corinth. There had been in that church an abuse 
of the ordinance. It had not only been converted 
into a common feast, but into an occasion of excess. 
"When ye come together into one place," said Paul, 
"this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating 
every one taketh before other his own supper; and 
one is hungry and another is drunken." Their 
feast was no longer "the Lord's supper," but a 
bacchanalia. The church was reproved in sharp 
terms for permitting this shameful desecration of 
the ordinance. "What?" said the indignant apos- 
tle; "have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or 
despise ye the church cf God, and shame them that 
have not (that is, the poor) ? Shall I praise you in 
this? I praise you not." This language implies 
more than it expresses. The apostle not only did 
not praise, but sternly rebuked this profanation of 
a sacred institution. The apostolic judgment was 



92 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

divinely approved ; for on account of this perversion 
many among the Corinthian Christians were "weak 
and sickly," and many slept or died. The church 
could not have been justly held responsible for this 
desecration of the supper, if it had not been au- 
thorized to exercise full control over the communi- 
cants. 

It may be noticed that the apostle says to indi- 
vidual church members: "Let a man examine him- 
self, and so let him eat of that bread and drink 
of that cup." It is not only the duty of the church 
collectively to maintain the purity of its com- 
munion, but of its members individually to partake 
of it with due self-examination and reverence. It 
should be borne in mind, however, that this exhor- 
tation was addressed to members of the church in 
Corinth; and we have elsewhere shown that it was 
composed exclusively of baptized believers. It was 
not, then, to men of the world, not to unbelievers, 
not to pious persons without the pale of a church, 
but to church members — baptized believers — that 
the injunction was given to partake of the Lord's 
supper with self-examination. 1 Cor. xi. 17-34. 

The authority for the communion of church mem- 
bers at the Lord's table is clear and indisputable; 
but, as already stated, in all the Scriptures no in- 
stance can be found of its administration, except 
within a church, and to regularly admitted church 
members. These unquestionable truths convinced 
the Christian world for eighteen centuries that 
baptism is a prerequisite to communion at the Lord's 



COMMUNION CONFINED TO CHURCHES. 93 

supper. On no one point, until quite recently, have 
Christians been so united in opinion as on this. 
Catholics, Greeks, Protestants, sects, orthodox and 
heterodox, disagreeing on almost all other articles 
of faith, were united on this. Baptists, in defend- 
ing their close communion, had only to avail them- 
selves of the argumentum ad liominem. They| 
could say to their Pedobaptist friends: You re- 
quire baptism as a condition of communion at the 
Lord's table; we do the same. The only difference 
is that you admit infant sprinkling to be valid bap- 
tism; we do not. Our difference respects the na- 
ture of baptism, not the terms of admission to the 
Lord's table. 

In the early part of the present century, the elo- 
quent Robert Hall, of England, in the advocacy of 
open communion, took the ground that there is no 
connection between baptism and the Lord's supper; 
that the supper may as well precede baptism as 
baptism the supper. This is certainly the point 
on which the question of free communion hinges. 
This Hall admits: "If we supposed there were a 
necessary, unalterable connection between the two 
positive Christian institutes, so that none were 
qualified for communion who had not been pre- 
viously baptized, we could not hesitate for a mo- 
ment respecting the refusal of Pedobaptists, without 
renouncing the principles of our denomination." 
Vol. I., page 403. We have shown that baptism pre- 
ceded the supper in the order prescribed by the 
apostolic commission; that the supper was adminis- 



94 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

tered in the primitive churches, and that they were 
composed exclusively of baptized believers; that all 
instructions concerning the administration of the 
ordinance were directed to a church and its mem- 
bers; and that these facts convinced the Christian 
world for eighteen centuries that baptism is a pre- 
requisite to the Lord's supper; and we now submit 
that the onus protandi lies on those who claim the 
right of the unbaptized to partake of it. It is a 
divinely instituted feast. Only those can properly 
share in it whom Christ has invited to it. If the 
unbaptized — persons having no church connection — 
claim the privilege of partaking of it, let them show 
divine authority in its support. In what chapter 
and verse is it recorded? Let us have the law, or 
the precedent, or the principle, or the logical infer- 
ence to confirm their right. We repeat that in all 
the oracles of God there is neither proof nor sem- 
blance of proof that the Lord's supper was ever 
administered but within a church and to its bap- 
tized members. 

It may be replied that partaking of the Lord's 
supper is not more dependent on the previous per- 
formance of baptism than are prayer, praise, and 
other religious duties. This is a mistake. These 
are moral duties, obligatory on all men, at all times, 
and in all places. They were practised before the 
institution of baptism and after its institution, by 
those who had not as well as those who had re- 
ceived it. The Lord's supper was instituted within 



COMMUNION CONFINED TO CHUBCHES. 95 

and for the church, and none were admitted to its 
privileges without baptism. 

We submit, then, that those who partake of the 
Lord's supper without baptism do so without di- 
vine warrant, on their own authority, and on terms 
that would lead to the abrogation of all church 
order and discipline. 



96 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

CHAPTER XL 

Communion at the Lord's Table Confined to Church 
Members. 

We have briefly stated our reasons for holding 
what is popularly called "close communion"; and 
we desire to make an appeal to the candid judgment 
of all who maintain tne opposite view. It is not 
strange that there should be differences of opinion 
among sincere Christians on this subject. Human 
judgments are so imperfect, and are warped by so 
many influences of education, interest, association, 
and taste, that we need not be surprised that they 
reach diverse conclusions. The primitive churches, 
under the instruction and supervision of the apos- 
tles, fell into many serious errors. Indeed, liability 
to mistakes on religious, as well as on other sub- 
jects, is inseparable from human ignorance, and 
enters into man's earthly probation. We say these 
things, not to extenuate the evils of error, but to 
inspire the erring with the spirit of candor. 

Suppose, then, that the Scriptures do teach — as 
we have endeavored to show that they do — that 
the apostolic churches were composed exclusively 
of baptized believers; that baptism was uniformly 
immersion; that none but the baptized were admit- 
ted into the fellowship of the churches, and that the 
Lord's supper was administered within the 
churches, and only to their members — what is the 
duty of Christians, having a clear and settled con- 



COMMUNION CONFINED TO CHURCH MEMBERS. 97 

viction that that was the divinely established or- 
der? Shall they adhere to it, or shall they, in 
deference to the views and feelings of brethren 
whom they love, and whom they would not willingly 
offend, depart from *t 9 Shall they be governed by 
their own views or by the opinions of others in a 
matter so grave and important? Let us examine 
the subject with care. 

It is evident that no church or churches, no asso- 
ciation or convention, no prelate or pontiff, has a 
right to annul an ordinance of Christ or to revoke 
an order which he has ordained. If Christ has 
made immersion a prerequisite to church member- 
ship and placed communion within the church, 
then it is plainly tLe duty of his disciples, if they 
understand his arrangement, to give the weight of 
their example and their influence to its support. 
On this point there surely should be no difference 
of opinion among those who acknowledge the su- 
preme headship of Jesus. 

Among the disciples of Christ there are wide 
differences of opinion as to the order mentioned. 
Some persons believe that sprinkling or pouring, 
as well as immersion, iki baptism; others that the 
sprinkling of an infant is Christian baptism. Some 
that baptism is not a Christian ordinance, and 
others that baptism is not a prerequisite of church 
membership or of a participation in the Lord's 
supper. This conflict of views brings up new ques- 
tions for the consideration of Christians — questions 
unknown in apostolic times, and consequently not 

7 



98 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES EESET. 

specifically decided in the Scriptures. What is to 
be done in this exigency? Certainly no party can 
reasonably claim that its opinions are infallible, 
and that persons who dissent from them are either 
ignorant or bigoted. The obvious duty of all 
Christians, arising from this diversity of views, is 
not to reproach or persecute each other, but to con- 
fess their liability to err, study the Scriptures with 
greater diligence and candor, give to others full 
credit for their intelligence and piety, and follow 
the convictions of their own understandings. Be- 
lieving, as we do, ttat immersion is a prerequisite 
to partaking of the Lord's supper, we feel bound, 
not only to follow tnat rule, but to do what we can 
to extend its authority; but we do not condemn or 
dislike Christians who dissent from our views. We 
think they are erring brethren, and would gladly 
reclaim them from their error; but we love them 
for the truth which they hold and the many Chris- 
tian virtues which they display. 

We have somewhat against our open-communion 
brethren, whether they be Baptists or Pedobaptists. 
They go too far for the truth, but not far enough 
for consistency. There is no conscientious bar to 
the fellowship of intercommuning churches. What- 
ever may be their differences of opinion concerning 
doctrine or church organization and discipline, they 
are not such as to interfere with their fellowship 
and communion at the Lord's table. They have one 
Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one communion 
table. Why should they have different churches? 



COMMUNION CONFINED TO CHURCH MEMBERS. 99 

It may be said, &nd it is said, that they prefer 
different forms cf church government and modes 
of discipline, and there is no good reason why 
they should not indulge their preference. Episcopa- 
lians like prelacy and liturgical services; Presby- 
terians hold to an eldership and presbyterial form 
of church government, and Methodists must have 
an itinerant ministry and love feasts; but these 
differences involve no breach of fellowship or com- 
munion. They are all substantially of one church. 
They are, as it is often said, different regiments in 
the same great army, and under the same invincible 
Commander. 

Now, this friendly diversity appears very well; 
but let us look a little more carefully into it. 
Where it leads to no unholy rivalry, and secures a 
brotherly and efficient co-operation, it is quite con- 
sistent with the principle of free communion. But 
take the case of a town with a population or fifteen 
hundred. It would make an admirable parish for a 
single pastor. He might be generously supported, 
and all his powers would find sweet and constant 
employment in feeding his flock. Such towns and 
villages are scattered all over the land. Yet you 
will scarcely find one in which there is not a Metho- 
dist, a Presbyterian, and an Episcopal church, and 
sometimes several other intercommuning churches. 
All the congregations are small, feeble, struggling 
for existence, and perhaps supported in part by 
the contributions of their wealthier sister 
churches of the cities. They maintain three 

L.ofC. 



100 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

or four or five pastors, to do what one 
could do as well, or even better. They go to the 
expense of erecting and keeping in repair as many- 
houses of worship as they have churches and pas- 
tors, when one could conveniently accommodate 
all the worshippers. Nor is this all, nor the worst. 
Constituted as human nature is, there must be 
rivalry, and, in many cases, antagonism and irrita- 
tion between the different sects. The Episcopalian 
eagerly seeks proselytes, because his church is the 
true church and has the genuine apostolic succes- 
sion; the Presbyterian pleads for the extension of 
his church, on the ground that its government is 
according to the scriptural pattern; and the Metho- 
dist is quite sure that all believers, and seekers, too, 
will find through his church the plainest, straight- 
est, and safest way to herven. We do not censure 
them for holding these views, provided they have 
been received after due examination and are main- 
tained with becoming modesty. We have great re- 
spect for conscientious convictions. The point we 
make is this: These different opinions present no 
bar to communion. Those who hold them have no 
conscientious scruples about entering into a com- 
mon fellowship and communion. It surely will not 
be maintained that persons who commune together 
occasionally cannot do so statedly and continu- 
ously; or that those who can consistently commune 
together cannot belong to a common church and 
submit to a common discipline. They may prefer 
certain forms of ecclesiastical government and cer- 



COMMUNION CONFINED TO CHURCH MEMBERS. 101 

tain modes of worship; but their preferences lie 
not in the way of their fellowship and communion. 
Love, candor, and a desire for the glory of Christ 
could easily adjust these differences. All might 
join the oldest, or the strongest, or the most con- 
venient church, and manifest their zeal for the 
unity of the church and the honor of their common 
Lord by holding their peculiar views in abeyance; 
or they might organize a church, retaining some of 
the distinctive tenets and practices of the several 
sects uniting in its formation. Where there is a 
will, there is a way. 

Now, when our intercommuning Pedobaptist bre- 
thren shall follow out their own principles — blend 
ing the feeble churches of the towns and villages 
into a common body, to promote their efficiency and 
to save expense — shall, in short, show more solici- 
tude to unite the discordant churches than to build 
up their several sects — we shall be strongly im- 
pressed with their consistent zeal for Christian 
union. While, however, they keep up, at vast labor 
and expense, their sectarian folds in our towns 
and villages, we must conclude that either their 
logic or their love is defective. 

It may be asked: Are not the Baptists equally 
eager to maintain churches in towns where the 
people are already amply supplied with Pedobaptist 
preaching? Perhaps they are. They certainly 
ought to be. The cases, however, are widely dif- 
ferent. The Pedobaptist churches are of a com- 
mon communion — they are branches of a common 



102 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

church — their members are kept apart by no con- 
scientious convictions. Baptists occupy entirely 
different ground. They differ from their Pedobap- 
tist brethren on church organization an,d Christian 
ordinances, and these differences are deemed, 
whether wisely c? unwisely, of sufficient moment to 
justify and to demand a breach of ecclesiastical 
fellowship and communion. Baptists having, as 
they conceive, scriptural views of the formation and 
discipline of churches, which are of great import- 
ance to the progress and final triumph of the king- 
dom of Christ, deem it their duty, without any 
abatement of their love to their Christian brethren 
who dissent from these opinions, to maintain and 
propagate them, not only by tongue and pen, but 
by pursuing a course in perfect consistency with 
them. They do not hesitate, therefore, to found 
and support churches in towns or neighborhoods 
well supplied with Pedobaptist churches and pas- 
tors, because it is considered their duty — at least, 
the duty of such of their members as truly believe 
in Christ — to be baptized and unite with Baptist 
churches. This conviction is neither bigotry nor 
intolerance. Do not Pedobaptists believe that Bap- 
tists should have their children baptized and be- 
come members of Pedobaptist churches? If they 
do not, they are not loyal to their own creeds; and 
we are pleased to say that Baptists, certainly with 
very few exceptions, have a firmer conviction of the 
truth of their distinctive principles. It all comes to 
this: If our principles are true, we are right in 



COMMUNION CONFINED TO CHURCH MEMBERS. 103 

maintaining them, and all Pedobaptists — that is, all 
believers — should accept and be governed by them; 
and if, on the other hand, pedobaptism and open 
communion are scriptural, then Baptists and all 
other persons should accept these principles and 
govern themselves accordingly. If our readers 
should be led to a candid, thorough, and God-fearing 
examination of these subjects, in the light of divine 
revelation, our end will have been gained. 



104 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

CHAPTER XII. 

Is Open Communion Demanded for the Edification 
of the Churches? 

The Scriptures furnish no certain example of the 
intercommunion of churches. The nearest ap- 
proach to it was the case of Paul breaking bread 
with the disciples at Troas. He was a divinely- 
authorized founder of churches; but whether he 
was a member of any local church, in the sense in 
which the phrase is now understood, is very doubt- 
ful. If he was a member of any church, we do 
not know which it was. If intercommunion was 
practised by the members of the primitive churches, 
it was, we suppose, granted as a courtesy, and not 
claimed as a right. There was no law requiring it, 
and no example, if the doubtful one of Paul above 
referred to be omitted, encouraging it. It might 
have prevailed — its prevalence, so far as we can dis- 
cern, would have been consistent with the consti- 
tution and discipline of the churches — it was sim- 
ply a matter of choice and of courtesy. We may 
reasonably take it for granted that, had it been 
necessary or even desirable for the edification of the 
churches and the increase of brotherly love, the 
Scriptures would contain some precept, or example, 
or intimation for its enforcement. For the joint 
participation of the Lord's supper by members of 
the same church, they furnish ample authority; 



IS OPEN COMMUNION DEMANDED? 105 

but on the intercommunion of churches they main- 
tain a profound silence. 

What, in the light of observation, is the value 
of open communion? It is, we think, but little 
prized by those Christians who accept it as an arti- 
cle of their creed. In discussing the subject with 
Baptists, they lay great stress on it; but practically 
they attach little importance to it. In the cities, 
the members of the different Pedobaptist sects 
rarely commune with one another. Why should 
they do it? They have regular communions in 
their respective churches, and do not need to go 
beyond them to secure the benefits of the Lord's 
supper. In country churches, where religious wor- 
ship is held infrequently, and the Christian sects 
are more thrown together, instances of the inter- 
communion of the members of different denomina- 
tions are more likely to occur; but, even in these 
cases, we have yet to learn that the privilege is 
much prized or productive of much benefit. 

Why, then, do Pedobaptists plead so earnestly 
for open communion? We wish not to be uncharit- 
able; but we cannot close our eyes to the principles 
which govern human nature. Doubtless there are 
many who plead for open communion with a catho- 
lic spirit, believing that it is promotive of brotherly 
love; but this cannot be said of all its advocates. 
It answers several purposes besides those which 
charity would accomplish. It has a great sem- 
blance of liberality, which, we have shown, is in 
many cases a mere semblance. It contrasts very 



106 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

favorably with what is represented to be the nar- 
rowness and bigotry of close communionists. We, 
it is said, place no bar to the Lord's supper — we in- 
vite all his friends to it — all who desire to do so 
may partake of it; but it is left to be inferred that 
close communionists are governed by a very differ- 
ent spirit — they surround the Lord's table with un- 
warrantable barriers, claim for themselves peculiar 
privileges, and unchristianize people as good as 
themselves. Nor is this the only use made of the 
doctrine of open communion. Baptists maintain 
that all believers, even those baptized in infancy, 
should be immersed on a profession of their faith. 
Young converts, with the New Testament in their 
hands, if they have not received a thorough Pedo- 
baptist drilling, are almost sure to conclude that 
they should go to the water, and not that the water 
should be brought to them, for baptism. The bap- 
tizing by John "in the river Jordan," and the going 
down of both Philip and the eunuch into the water 
for baptism, quite satisfy the minds of warm- 
hearted, obedient new converts that baptism is im- 
mersion; and it is not easy, in some cases, 
to efface this conviction. Close communion, how- 
ever, is an admirable weapon to combat the sup- 
posed error. Are you willing to be shut out from 
communion with your kindred and friends, and to 
confine your Christian fellowship to a sect whose 
views on the subject of communion fall, in libe- 
rality and freedom, so far below those of other 
Christian denominations? This is an appeal to 



IS OPEN COMMUNION DEMANDED? 107 

young converts which strongly impresses their feel- 
ings. Their sympathies are warm and lively, and 
they would be pleased to commune with the whole 
world. They have yet to learn that, not their own 
feelings, but the Word of God, should be their guide 
in religious matters — that "charity rejoiceth in the 
truth." While the duty of baptism is in no wise 
dependent on the terms of communion, it is fair 
to conclude that thousands have been turned away 
from immersion on a profession of faith by the im- 
pression that immersionists are narrow and illibe- 
ral in regard to communion at the Lord's table. 

Open communion, on the part of Baptists, is not 
only unauthorized, but impolitic. If it were di- 
vinely required, there should be an end to all con- 
troversy on the subject. If it were merely permit- 
ted, churches should be left to the exercise of their 
own taste and judgment in deciding on the expe- 
diency of its adoption. We believe that it is sub- 
stantially forbidden; but that, if it were not, it 
would be impolitic for Baptists, with their responsi- 
bilities and aims, to practise it. They believe that 
on them devolves the duty of restoring the ordi- 
nances of Christ to their primitive simplicity, de- 
sign, and order, and of promoting the organization 
of churches according to the apostolic model. This 
is their mission, and they should avoid whatever 
tends to defeat it. Open communion clearly leads 
in this direction. 

The experience of the English Baptists has shed 
much light on the influence of open communion 



108 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

on the prosperity of churches. The practice is ad- 
vocated mainly on the ground that it promotes 
brotherly affection and co-operation among evan- 
gelical Christians, and a candid examination of 
Baptist principles. These are certainly very im- 
portant ends to gain; but let us inquire in what 
degree they are secured by the measure. We will 
ignore the fact that these objects might quite as 
easily, and, as we think, far more scripturally, be 
secured by the abandonment of infant sprinkling 
and a return to the primitive practice of immersion. 
Conceding that for their attainment Baptists shall 
adopt the practice of open communion, what will be 
the result? 

Mixed church membership follows open com- 
munion by a logical necessity. Communion at 
the Lord's table is a test of church fellowship. If 
Christians commune together, they may surely co- 
operate in whatever is needed to support and ex- 
tend the communion. The adoption of open com- 
munion brings, not peace, but discord, to Baptist 
churches. It opens the question of mixed church 
membership, by which many of the English Bap- 
tist churches have been agitated and rent asunder. 
Of these churches, some are close communion, some 
are open communion, some are of mixed member- 
ship, and not a few are battling over the subject 
of mixed membership. 

Yielding on the question of open membership — 
as yield they must, if they accept open communion, 
and are capable of feeling the force of an argu- 



IS OPEN COMMUNION DEMANDED? 109 

ment — the churches are met by the inquiry whether 
their officers shall be limited to Baptists. Why 
should they be, if the churches are composed of 
Baptists and Pedobaptists, immersionists and 
'sprinklers? It is unreasonable, unjust, and offen- 
sive, if a church is composed of a mixed member- 
ship, to insist that its officers shall all be of one 
party. Such unfairness cannot be maintained. As 
a matter of fact, Baptist churches, adopting mixed 
membership, soon accept Pedobaptist deacons and 
pastors. 

Even this concession does not put an end to con- 
troversy. The question necessarily arises: Why 
should a church, composed partly of Baptists and 
partly of Antibaptists, and having officers of either 
party, be called a Baptist church? The name is 
false, misleading, and cannot be reasonably de- 
fended for a moment. With the distinctive princi- 
ples of Baptists, their name must take its de- 
parture,. We know not how many, but certainly 
quite a number, of English Baptist churches, under 
the influence of open-communion principles, have 
ceased to be Baptist churches. The church in Bed- 
ford, to which John Bunyan ministered, is a nota- 
ble instance of the transforming power of open 
communion. 

The influence of open communion and mixed 
membership is decidedly unfavorable to the pro- 
gress of Baptist principles. They are not adapted 
to a carnal and worldly taste. They are accepted 
only on divine authority, and that authority, to 



110 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

exert its proper influence, must be frequently held 
up to the attention and pressed on the con- 
sciences of men. They are pleasing to the humble, 
self-denying, and devout; but they are distasteful 
to the proud, the gay, and the fashionable. These' 
would peril their salvation sooner than they would 
be publicly and solemnly immersed in attestation 
of their loyalty to Jesus. It is not so with 
pedobaptism. It strongly appeals to parental affec- 
tion, does not offend the most delicate taste, is re- 
commended by the graces of poetry and the charms 
of painting, and is practised by thousands as a 
beautiful and seemly ceremony, who do not admit 
its divine authority. It is entrenched in the creeds 
and honored in the practice of the most numerous, 
respectable, and influential Christian sects. It needs 
no advocates. Its history and associations give it 
influence and secure its perpetuity. 

The obvious effect of mixed communion and 
mixed church membership is to stop the mouths 
of Baptist ministers concerning their distinctive 
principles. Suppose a minister is pastor of a 
mixed church. He derives his support partly from 
those who believe and partly from those who reject 
his peculiar principles. His influence, his happi- 
ness, and his usefulness depend on his securing the 
confidence, affection, and co-operation of the mem- 
bers of his church, of all parties. Can he be ex- 
pected to preach plain, pointed sermons on the duty 
of all believers to be immersed, and on the evils of 
infant baptism? Why, the very act of receiving 



IS OPEN COMMUNION DEMANDED? HI 

Antibaptists into the communion of the church is 
a public and solemn admission that Baptist prin- 
ciples are of little worth and need not be con- 
tended for. A few ministers of deep conviction and 
of great boldness may rise above these embarrass- 
ments, and give faithful utterance to their princi- 
ples; but it is contrary to all the motives that 
govern human action to imagine that the number 
of such preachers could be great, or that the bravest 
would not be hampered by their associations. That 
such is the perplexing and restraining influence of 
mixed church membership, we were fully convinced 
by our observations on English Baptist meetings. 
Their leaders, men of learning, eloquence, and 
power, were constrained, by the courtesy due to a 
mixed membership, to avoid any vigorous utterance 
of distinctive Baptist principles. 

If these be the influence and results of open 
communion, it is not surprising that persons who 
believe that the peculiar views of Baptists are erro- 
neous should favor the practice. They are gov- 
erned by sound policy. They pursue the wisest 
course to counteract the influence of Baptist princi- 
ples. With their views, they act consistently. We 
only question the validity of their claim to any 
special liberality in their course. That Baptists 
are unwilling to adopt a practice whose logical re- 
sults are open church membership and a renuncia- 
tion of their distinctive principles and name, espe- 
cially when in doing so they forsake the order of 
the primitive churches, is surely not wonderful. 



112 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

If their principles are scriptural, it is their plain 
and solemn duty to avoid all measures that tend 
to hinder their influence, and employ the most 
suitable means to secure their spread and triumph. 



POINTS PERTAINING TO CLOSE COMMUNION. 113 

CHAPTER XIII. 
Incidental Points Pertaining to Close Communion. 

We are often asked by persons, heartily accept- 
ing Baptist principles in the main, why the im- 
mersed members of Pedobaptist churches and the 
members of churches practising immersion are not 
invited to commune in Baptist churches. We ad- 
mit, say they, that baptism is a prerequisite to com- 
munion; but these believers have been immersed, 
and some of them by duly qualified Baptist minis- 
ters — why, then, should they not be admitted to 
the Lord's table? The question is important, and 
deserving of candid consideration. 

Faith and baptism are conditions precedent of a 
participation of the Lord's supper; but they are not 
the only terms of admission to it. We have en- 
deavored to show that the supper is a feast within, 
and not without, a church, designed for all its 
members, and only for its members, or for 
members of other churches maintaining the 
same terms of communion. The exercise of dis- 
cipline and the privilege of communion are co- 
extensive. In the apostolic churches, none were 
permitted to commune who were not subject to 
ecclesiastical discipline. Paul, in the exercise of 
his apostolic authority, required the church at 
Corinth to put away from among them the incestu- 
ous member; and afterwards, when he furnished 
proofs of his repentance, to restore him to their 

8 



114 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

fellowship. 1 Cor. v. 1-5; 2 Cor. ii. 5-8. This trans- 
gressor was, for a time, excluded from a participa- 
tion of the Lord's supper. 1 Cor. iv. 11. By com- 
mon consent, this act of exclusion from a church is 
called excommunication; that is, expulsion from 
communion. So thoroughly is this truth embedded 
in the popular mind, that communion and church 
membership are expressions used interchangeably. 
A member of a Presbyterian or an Episcopal church 
is called a communicant of the church. 

Piety and baptism do not constitute one a mem- 
ber of a Baptist church. He must, in order to be- 
come a member of it, seek admission into it, adopt 
its essential principles, and submit to its discipline. 
To continue a member of it, he must walk in the 
commandments and ordinances of the Lord, if not 
without blame, at least without gross and persistent 
departures from them. "Now we command you, 
brethren," said Paul, to "the church of the Thessalo- 
nians," "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that 
ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that 
walketh disorderly and not after the tradition 
which he received of us." 2 Thess. iii. 6. To 
walk "disorderly" is to live in vice, or in wilful 
transgression. By "tradition" the apostle meant 
the doctrine or teaching which he and his associates 
had received from Christ and imparted to the 
Thessalonians. To walk "disorderly" is, we judge, 
to walk "not after the tradition" received from the 
apostles. The latter phrase is explanatory of the 
former. No command can be more imperative than 



POINTS PERTAINING TO CLOSE COMMUNION. 115 

that laid on churches to withdraw from disorderly 
walkers, who respect not the teaching of the apos- 
tles. "We command you," said Paul and his com- 
panions, not in their own names, but "in the name 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw your- 
selves from every brother that walketh disorderly/' 
&c. This withdrawal was to extend to "every 
brother" — rich or poor, high or low, kinsman or 
stranger — who walked "disorderly"; that is, per- 
sistently pursued a course contrary to the apostolic 
teaching. No plea of friendship, ignorance, or ex- 
pediency can set aside this law. 

We must now inquire whether the connection of 
immersed believers with Pedobaptist churches, or 
with other religious bodies, deemed unsound in 
doctrine or irregular in practice, is disorderly walk- 
ing and contrary to apostolic teaching. In this 
argument, we must take for granted the truth of 
Baptist principles. Conceding that churches should 
be composed exclusively of immersed believers, and 
that communion at the Lord's table should be re- 
stricted to church members, is the course of Bap- 
tists in uniting with Pedobaptist churches, or with 
other bodies, not sound in faith and practice, 
orderly and according to apostolic "tradition"? 
We think not. Their course is not in harmony 
with the admitted principles. They voluntarily 
withdraw themselves from a church scripturally 
organized, and give their influence and labors to 
the support of principles which they admit to be 
false. In principles, they are Baptists; in profes- 



116 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

sion and influence, they are Pedobaptists. Clearly 
it is their duty to support and disseminate the prin- 
ciples which they admit to be true. We believe, say 
they, that only believers are proper subjects of bap- 
tism, and nothing is baptism but immersion; but 
their example is at war with their convictions. In 
short, they concede that Christ has established one 
order for the constitution of his church, and they, 
for convenience or respectability, or from indiffer- 
ence to his authority, follow another. Such a 
course could not have been pursued in the apostolic 
times without incurring the charge of walking 
"disorderly," and "not after the tradition" received 
by the Spirit of inspiration. 

It may be pleaded, in behalf of these inconsistent 
Baptists, that they are pursuing the course dic- 
tated by their consciences. We are not consider- 
ing specially what is their duty, but what is the 
duty of the churches in regard to them. We do 
not judge these irregular Baptists. We consider 
them in error; but what allowance is to be made 
for their lack of information, their temperaments, 
their associations, and their peculiar circumstances, 
we know not. Their Master will judge them. 
Let them have due respect for their conscientious 
convictions. These may govern their own conduct; 
but they are no guide for the churches. They 
should be controlled by the Scriptures, honestly 
and intelligently interpreted and faithfully applied. 
If these teach that communion should be limited to 
churches, that churches should withdraw from all 



POINTS PERTAINING TO CLOSE COMMUNION. 117 

disorderly walkers, and that those walk disor- 
derly who abandon churches scripturally consti- 
tuted, to support those that are defective and irregu- 
lar in their formation, then the duty of Baptist 
churches regarding these erring brethren is clear 
and imperative. 

It is a pity that all Christians cannot commune 
together. We have no sympathy with those who 
believe that divisions among churches are good. 
They are evil, and are fraught with incalculable 
mischiefs. It is certainly to be deplored that all 
Baptists cannot commune together, according to 
the inspired order. Their identity of principles, in- 
terests, and aims should draw them together; and 
we wish to address some remarks to Baptists un- 
connected with regular Baptist churches. 

There can be no union and communion between 
these parties without a yielding on one side or the 
other. The mountain must go to Mohammed, or 
Mohammed must come to the mountain. The de- 
nomination cannot yield its principles. They are 
grounded in its convictions, incorporated in its lite- 
rature, and are the bond of its union. No man nor 
set of men, no arguments nor influence, can swerve 
it from its long-cherished doctrines. The mountain 
cannot go to Mohammed. There can scarcely, how- 
ever, be any insuperable obstacle to the union of 
individual Baptists with Baptist churches. These 
irregular Baptists may deem it their privilege — 
they can hardly consider it their duty — to com- 
mune with Pedobaptists. There is no divine law 



118 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

requiring them to commune in churches whose 
baptisms they consider invalid. It is their duty 
to partake of the Lord's supper in the prescribed 
order; but surely there is neither precept nor exam- 
ple binding them to commune in Pedobaptist 
churches. Admitting, for the sake of the argu- 
ment, that it is their right to do so, still they would 
violate no law, sacrifice no principle, and do no in- 
jury in declining to exercise it. Mohammed can 
come to the mountain. 

As matters stand in this country, a Baptist can- 
not commune, however much he may desire it, in 
both Baptist and Pedobaptist churches. He must 
make his election between them. Either he must 
unite with Pedobaptists, and give his example, in- 
fluence, and labors, indirectly, at least, to the sup- 
port of pedobaptism, or he must join the Baptists 
and enlist his energies in support of their princi- 
ples. It is strange that he should hesitate for a 
moment in making his choice. With Baptists he 
differs on a single point — the terms of admission 
to the Lord's table; from Pedobaptists he dissents 
on the conditions of church membership and on the 
subjects and act of Christian baptism — principles 
deeply affecting the form and prosperity of the 
churches. 

A Pedobaptist church is no home for a Baptist. 
Many years ago, we were conversing with a minis- 
ter of another denomination, a most fiery advocate 
of open communion. We said to him: "If I were a 
member of your church, holding the principles that 



POINTS PERTAINING TO CLOSE COMMUNION. 119 

I do, and deeming it my duty to maintain and 
make proselytes to them, what would you do with 
me?" He promptly replied: "We should expel 
you." "That would be according to your disci- 
pline," said I; "but should I unite with a Baptist 
church, and propose to commune with you, would 
you admit me to your communion?" He frankly 
answered: "It would seem to be inconsistent." 

The truth is, no earnest Baptist can long remain 
in a Pedobaptist church. It is only by ignoring his 
principles or keeping them in abeyance that he can 
be received into such a church. If he is intelli- 
gently convinced of their truth and importance, 
and deems it his duty — as undoubtedly he should — 
to disseminate them, he will soon find that he is 
an unwelcome member. The church will have no 
use for him, if he speaks in disparagement of infant 
baptism and pleads for the immersion of believers. 
They would excommunicate him, as a teacher of 
false doctrine and a disturber of the peace of the 
church. There is but one consistent course for a 
Baptist, and that is to be a member of a Baptist 
church, and labor, lovingly and faithfully, by all 
the means within his power, to defend and diffuse 
his principles. 



120 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

CHAPTER XIV. 
Religious Freedom. 

We cannot close this discussion ot Baptist prin- 
ciples without a reference to religious freedom. 
The liberty to worship God according to the dic- 
tates of conscience, is the dearest of all human 
rights. That it should ever have been denied is 
one of the strongest proofs of human fallibility. 
Certain it is, however, that, a little more than two 
centuries ago, almost all religionists, Catholic, 
Greek and Protestant, maintained that either the 
civil or the ecclesiastical power had the right to 
regulate the public worship of God, and that all 
persons subject to its jurisdiction were bound, 
under pain of fines, imprisonment, and death it- 
self, in its most appalling forms, to comply with 
the prescribed regulations. In the early ages, 
Christians suffered severely from their heathen 
rulers, because they persistently worshipped 
Christ and labored to bring the world into sub- 
jection to his authority. After Christianity gained 
the ascendency, and the churches were consoli- 
dated into a hierarchy and invested with secular 
authority, or were able to control it through its 
subservient minions, the acceptance of its creed 
and conformity to its rites, worship, and decrees, 
were enforced with an intolerance and severity 
which exceeded even pagan ferocity. The history 
of Romanism is a heart-rending record of spiritual 



RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. 121 

tyranny — of chains, dungeons, tortures, and fires. 
When the churches of Northern Europe threw off 
the papal yoke, along with many and important 
reforms which they introduced, they retained the 
intolerant views and spirit of their recent rulers. 
Romanists, claiming infallibility, had the plea of 
consistency for their persecutions; while Pro- 
testants, admitting their liability to err, had not 
that poor defence for their relentless cruelties to 
those who called in question their spiritual au- 
thority or dissented from their religious creeds. 
The Protestant sects of the sixteenth century — 
Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians — in- 
vested with civil authority, or able to influence 
secular rulers, were intolerant, and carried their 
tyranny not only to fines and confiscation, but to 
imprisonment, torture, and blood. Even the Inde- 
pendents, who fled from the persecutions of the 
English Episcopalians to the wilds of America, 
deemed it their duty to cherish the spirit and imi- 
tate the example of their oppressors. 

We can hardly claim belief in religious liberty 
as being now a distinctive Baptist principle. A 
great change has taken place in the views and 
spirit of the Christian world on this subject, 
especially the Protestant portion of it, within the 
last two centuries, and more particularly since the 
beginning of the present century. In all Pro 
testant countries, there is, at present, religious 
toleration, if not full freedom. In most Roman 
Catholic countries, dissenters are tolerated, or, at 



122 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES EESET. 

least, treated with less severity than in former 
times. The fires of the Inquisition have been ex- 
tinguished, and that ecclesiastical court, so fiendish 
in its spirit and so fearful in its works of darkness 
and of blood, has everywhere been overthrown or 
stripped of its power for mischief. 

Baptists, under all the names which they have 
borne, in different countries and in different cen- 
turies, have been unswervingly loyal to the prin- 
ciples of religious liberty. Whatever may have 
been their faults — and they have neither been in- 
fallible in judgment nor irreproachable in con- 
duct — they have been free from the guilt of perse- 
cution. They have not only been the earnest 
advocates of religic s liberty, but they have sup- 
ported it in its fullest extent. They have not only 
claimed it for themselves, but have accorded it to 
others — Jews and pagans, as well as Christians. 

It must be conceded that Baptists, with scarcely 
an exception, have been a minority under civil 
governments. Minorities, especially when op- 
pressed and persecuted, are always favorable to 
extending the limits of freedom. It would be im- 
possible that they should not desire liberty in re- 
gard to the matters which subject them to reproach 
and punishment. It must also be admitted that 
small and persecuted sects have deep sympathy for 
each other in their trials, and are easily led to 
make common cause in the defence or for the ex- 
tension of the freedom in which they have a com- 
mon interest. 



RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. 123 

We claim for Baptists, however, not merely that 
they have been the steadfast friends of religious 
liberty, but that their distinctive principles neces- 
sarily compel them to maintain this position. 
They cannot be consistently Baptists and not ad- 
vocates of soul liberty. Before they can persecute 
for conscience* sake, they must renounce, or, at 
least, ignore their distinctive principles. They 
may not be ffee from the spirit of bigotry and in- 
tolerance; but it is directly antagonistic to their 
doctrines. 

Let us carefully examine this matter, even if, in 
doing so, we must retrace ground already trodden. 
According to Baptist views, no man can become a 
church member who does not voluntarily accept 
Christ as his Master, and who does not willingly 
receive baptism in attestation of this submission. 
Moreover, having freely become a member, he 
cannot retain his place in the church, unless his 
life is in harmony with his profession. In short, 
faith and baptism arc essential prerequisites to 
church membership, and a godly life is necessary 
to the continuance of the connection. If these 
principles are maintained, neither birth, nor bap- 
tism, nor education, nor wealth, nor office, nor 
profession, can secure a place in a Baptist church; 
nor can one retain his place in it without imbibing 
the spirit and imitating the example of the Re- 
deemer. It is obvious that a church organized on 
these principles cannot be a persecuting body. 
For what purpose could it persecute? Not to 



124 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES EESET. 

force members to join it; for none can be admitted 
to its membership without qualifications which no 
persecution can secure. Not to keep members 
within it; for it can retain only such as love its 
members, doctrine, ordinances, and discipline, and 
force cannot produce these fruits. The conquests 
of such a church must be made, not by the sword 
of the executioner, but by "the sword of the Spirit." 
Other churches may employ carnal weapons, and 
inflict pains and penalties, to promote their pros- 
perity; but Baptist churches, if they flourish, must 
succeed by moral suasion and the grace of God. 

Hierarchies — churches established by law, and 
supported by civil, and, if necessary, by military 
power — have been the greatest curse of Christen- 
dom. They are utterly at variance with the spirit 
and doctrine of Jesus. His kingdom is not of 
this world. He came, not to destroy men's lives, 
but to save their souls; and, to fulfil his mission, 
he employed, not swords and spears, but truth and 
reason and kind persuasion. He established no 
hierarchy, and gave no authority for its establish- 
ment. The connection between Church and State 
is adulterous, and equally corrupting to the church 
and pernicious to the State. A hierarchy cannot 
be supported without a hereditary membership, 
the obliteration of the line of demarcation between 
the godly and the ungodly, and the limitation of 
discipline to dissent from the established faith and 
resistance to spiritual authority. As a matter of 
history, all hierarchies have been composed of the 



RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. 125 

population in their respective territories, regard- 
less of their moral qualities. In England, until 
quite recently, no man could hold office who was 
not a communicant in the Established church; and 
it may be easily seen how strong was the tempta- 
tion to hypocrisy and the profanation of the Lord's 
supper among the aspirants for political and offi- 
cial preferment. 

Pedobaptism, though not necessarily associated 
with a hierarchy, is adapted to encourage it, readily 
lends its aid to support it, and is essential to its 
development. No State church has ever existed, 
or ever can exist, without its help. According to 
the Pedobaptist theory, children of church mem- 
bers are born in the church or are regenerated and 
inducted into it by baptism. They grow up in it, 
with whatever of selfishness, impurity, and unbe- 
lief may be developed in them. In most such 
churches, they are, at a certain ' age, without 
any profession of conversion, confirmed in their 
membership, by appropriate ceremonies — remain 
in their connection, regardless of their impiety, to 
the end of their lives — and are then buried in con- 
secrated ground, in proof of their good ecclesias- 
tical standing. It is easy to perceive that infant 
baptism is "the ground and pillar" of the system. 
Without it, hierarchies would soon tumble and dis- 
appear, "as the baseless fabric of a vision." 

Baptists have an honorable record on the sub- 
ject of religious liberty. If they were not the 
first, they were certainly among the first to pro- 



126 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

claim it as the indefeasible right of man. Roger 
Williams, a Baptist, founded the State of Rhode 
Island, the first government in which full religious 
liberty was ever secured. Of him Bancroft says: 
"He was the first person in modern Christendom 
to assert in its plenitude the doctrine of the liberty 
of conscience, the equality of opinions before the 
law, and in its defence he was the harbinger of 
Milton, the precursor and the superior of Jeremy 
Taylor." Dr. S. S. Cutting, in his introduction to 
the Struggles and Triumphs of Religious Liberty, 
by E. B. Underhill LL. D., of London, speaking 
of this testimony of Bancroft, says: "The truth, 
however, is that the contest in the colony of Massa- 
chusetts Bay was an imported contest. It came, 
with all its distinctively recognized principles, 
across the Atlantic, in the breasts of men who had 
fought the same battles in Holland and England. 
John Cotcon and Roger Williams had had their 
teachers in such men as John Robinson and Thos. 
Helwys" — both Baptists. Largely through the in- 
fluence of Baptists, the religious establishment of 
Virginia was overthrown, and perfect soul free- 
dom guaranteed in the State. This, so far as we 
know, was the first instance in the history of 
Christendom in which a hierarchy was dissolved, 
except to be succeeded by another of a different 
creed, with an unchanged spirit of intolerance and 
tyranny. Baptists took an active, and, no doubt, 
influential part in procuring an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States securing religious 



RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. 12? 

freedom to all its citizens. Jow much their efforts 
have contributed to the progress and triumphs of 
religious liberty, it is impossible accurately to esti- 
mate. It is cause, however, for gratulation that 
they were, not only the first to assert it in its 
plenitude, but that they have been its consistent 
and earnest advocates for centuries; have heroic- 
ally suffered persecution from most Protestant 
sects, but have persecuted none; and have been 
permitted to see the steady progress of the doctrine 
which they once held almost alone and under re- 
proach, until almost the whole Christian world has 
been constrained to admit its truth, and govern its 
course accordingly. 



128 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

CHAPTER XV. 
Obligation of Baptists to Their Principles. 

These principles having been stated and briefly 
defended, need not be here repeated. If they are 
false, their prevalence is to be deplored, and none 
are so profoundly interested in their refutation as 
Baptists. We do not deprecate, but invite, their 
discussion. If they are unsound, we shall be deeply 
indebted to any polemic who can expose their rot- 
tenness and deliver us from our delusion. We, 
however, firmly believe them to be revealed in the 
Scriptures, and reason and conscience require that 
we should be governed by our belief. Accepting 
them as true, what obligations do they impose 
on us? 

These principles, if divinely revealed, may be 
comparatively overestimated. All truth is precious, 
but all is not equally precious. The Saviour distin- 
guishes between the least and the greatest com- 
mandments. Matt. v. 19 ; xxii. 38. Some truths are 
vital. The knowledge of them is essential to salva- 
tion. John xvii. 3. Others are promotive of piety 
and usefulness, but they are not fundamental in 
the Christian system. The principles for which we 
are contending are important, but not supremely 
important. A spiritual church membership is a 
divine arrangement of great moment to the pros- 
perity of the Redeemer's kingdom; but one may be 
spiritual without oelonging to any visible church. 



OBLIGATION OF BAPTISTS. 129 

Immersion is important, but it is far less important 
than the resurrection of Christ and the regeneration 
of a soul, which it symbolizes. Whatever may be 
said in commendation of the Lord's supper, its value 
is not to be compared to the atonement of Christ, 
which it sets forth. In our view, those who make 
baptism a regenerating ordinance misconceive its 
design, and assign to it an agency and an honor 
due only to the Holy Spirit; and those who make 
it a sin-remitting institution mistake the symbol 
for the substance, and ascribe to the water what is 
due only to faith in the blood of Christ. It cannot 
be doubted by any intelligent and unbiassed reader 
of history that great injury has been done to Chris- 
tianity by the unscriptural and extravagant im- 
portance attached to its ordinances and to ecclesi- 
astical authority and discipline. By multitudes the 
church has been substituted for Christ, and church- 
ianity for Christianity. 

On the other hand, Baptistic principles, if true, 
should not be undervalued. They are a part of a 
divine system, of transcendent importance, and are 
essential to its harmony and perfection. A church 
composed exclusively of spiritual members, or of 
persons who make a credible profession of piety, is 
the fittest symbol of heaven and the most suitable 
school in which to train pupils for the enjoyment 
of its bliss and glory. The change of immersion 
to sprinkling deprives the ordinance of its fitness 
to represent the death unto sin and the resurrec- 
tion unto life, experienced by every proper subject 

9 



130 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

of it, and of the copicus measure of the Spirit in 
which the apostles and the early Christians were 
baptized. In short, these principles were, we think, 
designed, and are pre-eminently adapted, to prevent 
the union of the church and the world — one of the 
sorest curses under which mankind have groaned. 

There is no cause to be ashamed of these princi- 
ples. They are not congenial to the taste of the 
world. In most nations and in most communities 
they are unpopular. Immersion especially is held 
in undisguised contempt by many, particularly 
among the upper classes of society. If, however, 
these principles are divine, they are wise, beneficent, 
and noble — worthy of our confidence and respect. 
Let men despise, if God approves them. It was 
through reproach and fierce opposition that the 
gospel gained its early and its most glorious tri- 
umphs. Our fathers maintained their principles 
amid scorn, persecution, and sufferings; and we 
should prove ourselves degenerate sons, if we were 
ashamed of truths in which they gloried and for 
which they extorted respect from a gainsaying and 
reluctant world. 

Believing these principles, Baptists are solemnly 
bound to defend them. They have always had, and 
probably to the dawn of the millennium will con- 
tinue to have opponents. Learning, eloquence, 
wealth, fashion, taste the interests and influence 
of large and powerful Christian denominations, and 
the authority and resources of hierarchies venerable 
for age and renowned for their works, are arrayed 



OBLIGATION OF BAPTISTS. 131 

against theni in serried ranks; while their advo- 
cates are comparatively few, poor, and feeble. If 
these principles had not been indestructible, they 
had long ago perished. It is ordained by the God 
of truth that they who know it shall defend it. 
"Contend earnestly for the faith which was once 
delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3) was an in- 
spired direction to the primitive disciples — an in- 
junction obligatory on Christians to the present 
day. They should contend, not harshly, inoppor- 
tunely, or indiscreetly, but bravely, kindly, candidly, 
wisely, and persistently, for "the faith once delivered 
unto the saints" — for every article of it, with due 
regard to its comparative value. 

Baptists are bound, not only to defend, but to 
disseminate their principles. Christianity is in its 
very nature aggressive. It is in essential antago- 
nism with the maxims, customs, aims, and prac- 
tices of the world. "If any man love the world, the 
love of the Father is not in him." The command of 
the risen Jesus to his apostles was: "Go, teach all 
nations." That law is of wide import. It requires 
that all mankind shall be instructed in the doctrine 
and precepts of Christianity; and in the faithful 
performance of this service, the inculcation of the 
important principles under consideration cannot 
be omitted. This is an abiding law of Christ. The 
gospel was given to the apostles, in trust for their 
successors — not their official successors, for they 
had none — but their successors in faith, spirit, aims, 
labors, and usefulness — their true successors — 



132 BAP1IST PBINCIPLES BESET. 

"alway, even to the end of the world." Baptists 
should teach their distinctive principles in their 
families, in their Sunday schools, in their pulpits, 
and in the world — by pen, and by tongue, and by 
type, and by every means which Divine Providence 
may place within their reach. 

Especially are Baptists bound to exemplify and 
commend their principles in their lives and in the 
discipline of their churches. The whole value of 
these principles lies in their power to make indi- 
vidual Christians more spiritual and churches more 
devout, liberal, and efficient. If, tried by tests, 
they are found wanting, it is sad for those who 
boast of them. Baptists and Baptist churches are 
not what they ought to be, and not what, under 
better culture, we trust they will become; but their 
principles present an insuperable barrier to that 
blending of the church and the world, which abol- 
ishes all wholesome ecclesiastical discipline, secu- 
larizes the church, and converts it into an agency 
for the promotion of worldly ambition and the in- 
dulgence of intolerant bigotry. No hierarchy can 
be organized on Baptist principles. Those who have 
been immersed on a solemn profession of their 
death to sin and their resurrection to a new life 
should so walk, in sobriety, righteousness, and 
piety, as to prove the genuineness of their profes- 
sion. A selfish, worldly, undevout Baptist is a dis- 
grace to his name. Baptist churches should be 
careful to maintain a scriptural discipline, making 
due allowance for ignorance and infirmity, but by 



OBLIGATION OF BAPTISTS. 133 

no means tolerating a persistence in sin. They 
should remember and put in force the solemn admo- 
nition of the apostle: "But I have written unto 
you not to keep company, if any man that is called a 
brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, 
or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with 
such an one no not to eat." (1 Cor. v. 11.) This 
prohibition had reference to church fellowship, as 
appears by the limitation made to it in the con- 
text: "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to com- 
pany with fornicators; yet not altogether with the 
fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or 
extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye 
needs go out of the world." (1 Cor. v. 9, 10.) 
Christians should eschew ecclesiastical association 
with the ungodly, but cannot wholly avoid social 
intercourse with them. 

What ground, it may be asked, is there to hope 
for the ultimate triumph of Baptist principles? 
None, if they be not true; but, if true, their final 
success is secured by the immutable purpose and 
the unfailing promise of the living God. Truth 
is mighty and will prevail. We are permitted, how- 
ever, to see signs of their progress and of their in- 
creasing influence. Wherever there is an open Bi- 
ble and religious toleration, there Baptist principles, 
to a greater or less extent, prevail. They are writ- 
ten, as with a sunbeam, by the Spirit of inspiration. 
By means of ingenious translations, learned com- 
mentaries, plausible arguments, and the force of 
early religious training, they may be concealed or 



134 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

perverted; but many who read the Scriptures with 
their own eyes, and with earnest prayer for divine 
guidance, will rei.ch the conclusion that these prin- 
ciples are revealed in the Scriptures and are worthy 
of cordial acceptance. 

Their prevalence among Pedobaptist denomina- 
tions is a pleasing indication of their progressive 
power. Many intelligent and estimable members of 
Pedobaptist churches refuse to have their children 
baptized, and the supposed duty cannot be enforced 
by ecclesiastical authority. In spite of all the 
efforts made to cast odium on immersion, almost all 
Pedobaptist denominations are compelled to take 
their converts, to satisfy their consciences, to rivers, 
ponds, or Baptist fonts, for the administration of 
the ordinance. Nor is this tendency checked by an 
occasional instance of an irreverent and awkward 
administration of immersion, adapted, if not de- 
signed, to cast reproach on it. We think it a favor- 
able indication of the progress of these principles 
that some Pedobaptists have run to the extreme of 
denying that immersion is baptism at all. It is 
an opinion contrary to the learning, history, and 
practice of the Christian world in all past ages, to 
which the advocates of pedorantism have been 
driven by their logical necessities. We decidedly 
prefer to combat the error on that line. It is a 
change of front, and indicative of conscious weak- 
ness on their part. 

Our hope is, not that all the world will formally 
become Baptists but that the distinctive princi- 



OBLIGATION OF BAPTISTS. 135 

pies for which they plead will gradually permeate 
all Christian sects, and that there will be a univer- 
sal return to apostolic principles in regard to Chris- 
tian ordinances and church organization. Suppose 
all the evangelical sects were gradually to abandon 
infant baptism, return to the ancient practice of im- 
mersion, and adopt a discipline suited to spiritual 
churches — would it not be a great gain to the cause 
of truth? Many questions would doubtless arise in 
such a religious revolution that would perplex and 
trouble the most honest and earnest inquirers after 
truth and duty; but we need not discuss them now. 
All approximation to right principles and practices 
among the religious denominations should be hailed 
with delight, and receive due encouragement from 
the friends of an unadulterated Christianity. 

Baptists should remain united, maintain their 
principles firmly and charitably, pray for the divine 
blessing on their efforts to advance his cause, and 
patiently wait for their dismission from the Mas- 
ter's service. 



PART IL 



Regenerate Church Membership, 
Henry G. Weston, D. D., LL.D., President of Crozer Theo- 
logical Seminary. 

The Subjects of Baptism, 

Alvah Hovey, D. D., LL.D., President Emeritus of Newton 

Theological Institution. 

The Case for Immersion at Present, 

Edgar Y. Mullins, D. D., LL.D., President Southern Baptist 

Theological Seminary. 

Archaeology of Baptism — The Bath, Under the Old 

Testament, 

Howard Osgood, Rochester, N. Y. 

Baptism the Door to the Lord's Supper, 
Franklin Johnson, D. D., LL.D., The University of Chicago. 

Baptists and Religious Liberty, 
Benjamin O. True, D. D., Rochester Theological Seminary. 

Obligations of Baptists to Teach Their Principles, 
J. B Gambrell, D. D., Texas. 




H. G. WESTON, IX.D., 
President of Crozer Theological Seminary. 



REGENERATE CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 139 

CHAPTER I. 

Regenerate Church Membership. 

BY HENRY G. WESTON, LL. D., PRESIDENT OF CROZER 
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 

The conditions of membership in a New Testa- 
ment church are determined by the nature of the 
church, its purpose, character, and functions. 

Our Lord Jesus Christ became incarnate that he 
might redeem man and his dwelling-place from the 
dominion of Satan and establish a kingdom in 
which the will of God should be done on earth as it 
is in heaven. 

The approach of the kingdom was formally and 
officially announced by John the Baptist, the di- 
vinely appointed herald, who bade the people pre- 
pare for the coming Messiah. The religious and 
civil authorities rejected the counsel of God against 
themselves, refused to be baptized by John, and 
finally put him to death. Lu. vii. 30. It was ap- 
parent that the same fate was reserved for Jesus. 
In view of this, he withdrew from the metropolis, 
gathered a band of followers in Galilee, to whom 
he so revealed himself by his words, his works, 
and his life that they saw that he was the Son 
of God, the manifestation of the Father, and they 
accepted and acknowledged him as such. When 
this was accomplished, he made known to them 
that he was about to establish a church composed 



140 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

of those to whom the Son had been divinely re- 
vealed by the Father; that to this church the keys 
of the kingdom would be entrusted;* that the way 
to the throne was by death on the cross; and that 
those who are to follow him must partake of his 
death and life. Matt. xvi. 13-28. 

We have now to do with the first of these great 
truths—the church. Its name (ecclesia) indicates 
that its note is selection and separation; its mem- 
bers are chosen and sanctified. This is explicitly 
stated by our Lord: "If ye were of the world, the 
world would love its own; but because you are not 
of the world, but I have chosen you out of the 
world, therefore the world hateth you." Jno. xv. 19. 
Peter, to whom, as the representative and spokes- 
man of the apostles, Christ declared his purpose to 
build a church, interprets his words as meaning 
what I have indicated. He describes the church 
as "an elect race, a holy nation, its members as liv- 
ing stones built on the living stone, a spiritual 



* The identification of the church with the kingdom is one 
of the fatal errors of the Roman Catholic Church. It has given 
the keys of the church to Peter, an interpretation which de- 
stroys the relation of the church to the kingdom, but which is 
in strict accord with the theory of that church's relation to 
the world. If any one is disposed to acquiesce in this identi- 
fication, let him substitute "church " for •■ kingdom " in the 
passages in the New Testament in which the latter word oc- 
curs, beginning with the first, "Thy kingdom come," and end- 
ing with the last (except the Apocalypse), "For so will be 
richly supplied to you the entrance into the eternal kingdom 
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,'* and see what sense ha 
will make. 



REOENEBATE CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 141 

house to offer up spiritual sacrifices." 1 Pet. li. 
5-10. Holiness is everywhere ascribed to the 
church, as righteousness is to the kingdom, and 
these characteristics are never interchanged. The 
members of the church are both holy and righteous, 
but the distinguishing characteristic of the church 
is holiness; its members are "the saints." 

In that wonderful chapter, the seventeenth of 
John's Gospel, which might be entitled the report 
which Christ makes to the Father of his earthly 
work, he describes the nature of that eternal life 
which he gives to all whom the Father has given 
him. It culminates in that divine unity which finds 
expression in the words, "I pray that they all may 
be one; as thou, Father, in me and I in thee, that 
they also may be in us" — words that are often in- 
terpreted to mean the union of Christians in an 
external organization. They have an infinitely 
deeper meaning. It is unity of which Christ 
speaks — that unity in the Father and the Son which 
has been produced by the manifestation of the 
divine nature to the men given to Christ out of the 
world (verse 6). It is frequently said that the 
prayer of Christ is as yet unanswered. Can we 
conceive of such a thing — that the prayer of God's 
Son, uttered at such a time, should be unanswered? 
It was answered; it is answered; and it is be- 
cause of that answer that there has been any recog- 
nition in the world of the claims of Christ — "that 
the world may believe that thou didst send me." 
What are called the evidences of Christianity have 



142 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

done very little in inducing men to submit to Christ. 
It is when men see Christ in the Christian, the 
glory which the Father gave to Christ and which 
Christ gave to his disciples, as he says — "the glory 
which thou gavest me I have given them, that they 
may be one as we are one" — it is then that men 
are won to the Saviour. 

To the same purport are those wonderful words 
of Peter, addressing those who have obtained an 
equally precious faith with us: "To whom he has 
given exceeding great and precious promises, that 
through these ye mignt become partakers of the 
divine nature, having escaped from the corrup- 
tion that is in the world." 2 Pet. i. 4. This identi- 
fication of the people of Christ with their Lord, 
this unity with the Father and the Son, finds con- 
tinual expression in the Epistles. Believers are 
said to be in Christ, and Christ is said to be in 
them; they have died with him, so that, if any one 
be in Christ, he is a new creation; if any man, no 
matter what he is or has been, wise or ignorant, 
moral or immoral, if he be in Christ, he is a new 
creature; old things have passed away, all things 
are become new. The change when one becomes a 
Christian is no reformation, no evolution; it is a 
new creation. 

This unity of life, of spirit, and of nature makes 
the church the body of Christ. A body is that by 
which the spirit acts on the world. All the proper 
acts and functions of Christ on the world are per- 
formed by means of his body — the church. He is 



REGENERATE CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 143 

the head, inspiring, directing, ruling, but doing 
all things through his body. "And gave him to be 
head over all things to the church, which is his 
body, the fulness of him who filleth all in all." Eph. 
i. 22. "All this grace and fulness must find means 
of expression and dispensation through the church." 
Through the church his redeeming and saving pur- 
poses are fulfilled; for it is through those who be- 
lieve that he, the source of life, becomes the source 
of life to others. "He that believeth on me, as the 
Scriptures have said, out of him shall flow rivers 
of living water." Jno. vii. 30. They are partakers 
in his death and resurrection; they have died to 
sin and risen to newness of life, and, although this 
death and life are not yet consummated, and will 
not be until the complete and final triumph over 
death at the resurrection at the last day, they 
have been so united to Christ that they bring forth 
the fruit of the vine of whose life they partake. 

It would seem unnecessary to discuss farther 
the place which regeneration holds in the divine 
economy. The scriptural definition of a Christian, 
the nature of a Christian life, the relation of the 
church to Christ, the office and functions of the 
church, the uniform and abundant teachings of the 
Epistles, the example of our Lord, who in his reve- 
lation of heavenly things begins with the absolute 
necessity of regeneration, all bear testimony to the 
great fundamental truth. And in this all evan- 
gelical churches agree. For that matter, the great 
majority of nominal Christians, whether evangeli- 



144 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

cal or not, unite in asserting the absolute necessity 
of regeneration; the difference between them lies 
in the method of regeneration. The sacramental- 
ists teach that "in baptism we were made members 
of Christ, the children of God, and inheritors of the 
kingdom of heaven." Evangelicals say that the 
church and its ordinances are for those who have 
been born again by the Holy Spirit, and that a 
church should be composed of the regenerate. This 
is abundantly declared in their official documents 
and by their acknowledged representatives. I 
quote only from those authorities which happen to 
be in my library. 

Dr. Henry M. Dexter is the acknowledged expo- 
nent of American Congregationalism. His works 
are standard. In his treatise on Congregational- 
ism, in his definition of a true church, he says: 
"A true church must be composed of those who 
believe themselves to be and publicly profess to be 
Christians." He argues this by a citation of those 
texts which (1) describe the church as being a 
holy body; (2) those which describe the vital union 
between Christ and the church; (3) those which 
announce the design which Christ has in regard to 
the church; (4) those which affirm a radical dis- 
tinction between tho church and the world; (5) 
those which require such preparation for the recep- 
tion of church ordinances as only believers can 
have; (6) those which require the discipline of 
unworthy members. Dr. Ross, in his lectures on 
Congregationalism, delivered before the Andover 
Theological Seminary, says (page 104): "The local, 



REGENERATE CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 145 

particular church should be composed of believers, 
or holy persons"; and to the proof of this devotes 
six octavo pages. The venerable Dr. Charles Hodge 
has an elaborate article in the Princeton Review 
(1853) on "The Idea of the Church," in which he 
argues at great length that "the church must con- 
sist of true believers." About the year 1842, Dr. 
Hodge gave to the public a book, published by the 
American Sunday-School Union, entitled, "The Way 
of Life." It was prepared for "those who are 
anxious to know what they must believe and what 
they must experience in order to be saved." The 
first sentence in the preface is: "It is one of the 
clearest principles of divine revelation that holi- 
ness is the fruit of truth"; and the book is in 
accord with that sentence. It is full of evangelical* 
truth, admirably expressed. His statements con- 
cerning the ordinances of the church are in exact 
harmony with our contention that a church should 
be composed of the regenerate. Witness the fol- 
lowing, from page 267: "The Scriptures teach that 
the ordinances are not appointed to convey in the 
first instance pardon and sanctification, but to be 
signs and seals of these blessings to the penitent 
believer; and that to him, and to him only, are they 
eflBcacious means of grace." Again (page 279): 
"Thus a knowledge of the truth concerning God, 
concerning sin, atonement, and regeneration is 
essential to a proper participation of the ordinance 
of baptism." A dozen similar statements might be 

10 



146 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

quoted from the chapter on "Profession of Reli- 
gion." 

In the British and Foreign Evangelical Review, 
October, 1860, is an article by Principal Cunning- 
ham, principal and professor of Church History, 
New College, Edinburgh, on "Zwingli and the Doc- 
trine of the Sacraments." The article, with others 
from the same author, has been republished in a 
volume entitled, "The Reformers and Theology of 
the Reformation." Principal Cunningham argues 
that "the Reformers, in preparing their confes- 
sions of faith, proceeded on the assumption that 
those partaking in the ordinances were duly quali- 
fied and rightly prepared; and more particularly 
that the persons baptized, in whom the true and 
full operation of baptism was exhibited, were 
adults — adult believers." In support of this posi- 
tion he quotes Martin Vitringa's "complete and 
comprehensive summary of the doctrine of the Re- 
formed churches upon this point; that the sacra- 
ments have been instituted only for those who 
have already received the grace of God — the called, 
the regenerate, the believing, the converted, those 
who are in covenant with God" (page 264). 
Vitringa has produced his evidence at length. His 
quotations fill about twenty pages, and are cer- 
tainly amply sufficient to establish his position. 
They prove that the quotation we have cited con- 
tains a correct summary of the doctrine of the Re- 
formed churches in regard to the proper subjects 
of the sacraments. Vitringa gives extracts from 



REGENERATE CHUBCH MEMBERSHIP. 147 

eight or ten of the confessions of the Reformation 
period, and from about fifty of the most eminent 
divines of that and the succeeding century (pages 
265, 266). Two or three of his authorities we 
quote. Samuel Rutherford: "Baptism is not that 
whereby we are entered into Christ's mystical and 
invisible body as such, for it is presupposed we 
be members of Christ's body and our sins pardoned 
already, before baptism comes to be a seal of sin 
pardoned" (page 279). Thomas Boston: "The 
sacraments are not converting, but confirming, ordi- 
nances; they are appointed for the use and benefit 
of God's children, not of others; they are given 
to believers as believers, so that none others are 
capable of the same before the Lord" (page 282). 
Dr. John Erskine, "probably the greatest divine in 
the Church of Scotland in the latter part of the 
last century": "Baptism, then, is a seal of spiritual 
blessings; and spiritual blessings it cannot seal to 
the unconverted" (page 283). 

How the positions thus avowed can be reconciled 
with the practice of infant baptism is not for me to 
say. Principal Cunningham says: "The views we 
have set forth on this subject may, at first sight, 
appear to be large concessions to those who deny 
the lawfulness of the baptism of infants," and he 
devotes two or three pages to the endeavor to 
show that these concessions are only in appear- 
ance. He says that infant baptism holds a pecu- 
liar place, and the ignorance or disregard of this 
fact has introduced much error and confusion into 
men's views upon this whole subject. "The pecu- 



148 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

liarity is that infant baptism really occupies a sort 
of subordinate and exceptional position." 

We have probably said enough by way of estab- 
lishing our proposition. History illustrates the im- 
portance of adhering to the scriptural position and 
practice in this matter. New England was settled 
by a people who held evangelical doctrine above all 
price. To attain it and retain it, they sacrificed 
everything. In an evil hour their descendants lost 
sight of the true nature of the church, adopted what 
was styled "The Half-way Covenant," and admitted 
to church membership those —ho gave no evidence 
of regeneration. The natural result followed. In 
the beginning of the present century, the pulpits 
which once resounded with the gospel preached 
by the Mathers, the Eliots, the Shepards, were occu- 
pied by men of an alien faith. With a single ex- 
ception, every old Puritan pulpit in Boston and 
vicinity was in the possession of men who scorned 
the evangelical creed. Preaching by the Baptists of 
the truth, "Ye must be born again," awoke men 
from the slumbers of spiritual death and dotted 
New England hills with Baptist churches. 

The various sections which bear the Christian 
name are discriminated by the respective need of 
human nature to which they specially appeal and 
for which they specially provide. One appeals to 
the religious nature; another to the intellectual; 
another to the spiritual. The question and test of 
the first is, Do you conform to the religious re- 
quirements of the church? Of the second, Do you 



REGENERATE CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 149 

adhere to the doctrinal confessions and standards? 
In the third, the first question always asked of 
applicants for admission to the church or ministry 
is, Are you regenerate? 



150 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

CHAPTER II. 
The Subjects of Baptism. 

BY ALVAH HOVEY, D. D., LL.D. 

I may as well begin with a confession of^personal 
faith, which is: That the only proper subjects of 
Christian baptism are persons who trust in Jesus 
Christ as their Redeemer and Lord; not believers 
in Christ, together with their households, including 
servants ; nor believers in Christ, together with their 
children, of whatever age; nor believers in Christ, 
with their helpless babes; but solely believers in 
Christ, who thereby confess their allegiance to him. 
This is the creed of Baptists in respect to the proper 
subjects of the first Christian ordinance. And, to 
the best of my knowledge, they have always held, 
and do now hold with undiminished confidence, this 
article of their faith, to be supported, first, by the 
narrative and expository references to baptism in 
the New Testament; secondly, by the nature of the 
Christian religion itself; and, thirdly, by the his- 
tory of Christendom in so far as it pertains to this 
subject. 

First, then, the narrative and expository refer- 
ences to baptism in the New Testament show that 
it was administered to persons who repented of 
sin or believed in Christ; and, in the case of those 
who heard the gospel, repentance and faith were in- 
separable; every believer began his life of trust in 
the Lord Jesus by repentance towards God. Thus 




AI.VAH HOVEY, IX. D., 
President Emeritus Newton Theological Institution. 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 151 

on the day of Pentecost the people who "were 
pierced in their heart," and "received the word of 
Peter, were baptized." In like manner, when 
Philip went down to the city of Samaria and 
preached to them the Christ, those who "believed 
Philip preaching good tidings concerning the king- 
dom of God and the name of Jesus Christ were 
baptized, both men and women." Equally plain is 
it that Saul of Tarsus was already a believing man, 
willing to obey the Lord Jesus, who appeared to 
him on the way to Damascus, before he was bap- 
tized by Ananias. The same was also true of Cor- 
nelius, the Roman centurion; of Lydia, the seller of 
purple, and her household; of the Philippian jailer 
and all his; and of the twelve disciples whom 
Paul rebaptized at Ephesus, evidently because they 
had not by their previous baptism confessed their 
intelligent faith in Christ as the giver of the Holy 
Spirit and the head of a spiritual kingdom. 
Indeed, we find no instance of the giving of baptism 
intentionally to any but persons having faith in 
Christ. And there is good reason to think that the 
apostle would not have rebaptized the twelve dis- 
ciples at Ephesus, if they had heard and under- 
stood all that John the Baptist had taught respect- 
ing One mightier than himself, who would baptize 
them in the Holy Spirit. 

It will be remembered at the same time that the 
baptism of John, whatever may have been its rela- 
tion to that commanded by Christ, was offered by 
him to none but those who were called to repent- 



152 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

ance and confession of their sins. Mark says that 
"they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, 
confessing their sins." Thus the first use of this 
significant rite in connection with the new order 
of things was apparently limited to persons who 
sought it of their own accord, and by it professed to 
enter upon a new and inward religious life. And if 
proselyte baptism was in use before the time of 
Christ, which is very doubtful, I am not aware 
of any evidence that it was administered to any 
class of people, old or young, as a substitute for cir- 
cumcision. Thus the narrative references to bap- 
tism in the New Testament support our conviction 
that its proper subjects are persons who trust in 
Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and Lord. 

It is true, however, that there are three instances 
of the baptism of households, or families, mentioned 
in the New Testament — namely, those of Lydia, of 
tho Philippian jailer, and of Stephanas; but an im- 
partial study of the narratives fails to discover in 
them the slightest evidence of an infant or unbe- 
lieving member in any of these households. It 
requires a creative imagination, like that of the 
late distinguished Horace Bushnell, to make such a 
discovery. A few years ago, the pastor of our 
church at Newton Centre, Mass., found that it had 
on its roll of members the names of not less than 
thirty entire families, all of them having been bap- 
tized on profession of faith in Christ. They com- 
prised, in fact, about one-third of the whole church. 

The doctrine of believer's baptism is also sup- 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 153 

ported by expository references to this ordinance 
in the New Testament. Peter's answer to the ques- 
tion of those who were pierced in their heart and 
said, "Brethren, what shall we do?" was this: "Re- 
pent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name 
of Jesus Christ, unto remission of your sins" — lan- 
guage which certainly gives a leading place to the 
action of the subjects of baptism in submitting to 
that ordinance. In striking agreement with this 
is Paul's account of what Ananias said to him in 
Damascus: "And now why tarriest thou? Arise, 
and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling 
on his name." To the same effect is the apostle's 
wcrd to the Galatians: "For ye are all sons of 
God through faith in Christ Jesus; for all ye who 
were baptized into Christ did put on Christ." The 
ritual and symbolic confession of their union with 
Christ was as much their own act as was 
their faith in him. And no less clearly 
does Peter, in his First Epistle, refer to the moral 
participation of the subjects of baptism in the act 
performed. The saving efficacy of baptism is 
ascribed to its relation to conscience; not the con- 
science of parents, of sponsors, or of administrators, 
but the conscience of the persons baptized. In all 
these and some other passages forgiveness of sins, 
union with Christ, or being saved, is connected with 
baptism, either because the new life begins with 
baptism or because its beginning is normally ex- 
pressed by baptism, the sign being put for the 
thing signified. We believe the latter explanation 



154 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

to be correct; for the apostle Paul claims to have 
been the spiritual father of the Corinthian saints, 
saying: "I write not these things to shame you, 
but to admonish you as my beloved children. For 
if ye have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet not 
many fathers; for in Christ Jesus, through the 
gospel, I begat you." The gospel, not baptism, 
was the means of their conversion; for Paul, in the 
first chapter of this very Epistle, disclaims baptizing 
them, with the exception of a very few, and re- 
joices in the fact that he had been sent, not to bap- 
tize, but to preach the gospel. 

Secondly, our conviction that the only proper 
subjects of Christian baptism are persons who trust 
in Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and Lord is sup- 
ported by the nature of the Christian religion. If 
there is anything which is taught with absolute 
clearness by the Saviour and his apostles, it is the 
personal and spiritual nature of our religion. This 
religion is neither national nor tribal, neither 
Semitic nor Greek. Pedigree is of no account with- 
out faith, and faith is a personal act. The history 
of Ishmael and Esau, of Absalom and Manasseh, 
proves that hereditary grace is a fiction. The scien- 
tific facts of heredity may, indeed, suggest that reli- 
gious character is transmissible from parents to 
children; but the history of mankind disproves 
the reality of this transmission, and the words of 
Christ, "Unless a man be born anew he cannot see 
the kingdom of God," confirm that disproof. 

When we think of the gospel as a message of 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 155 

religious truth to beings of a religious nature, we 
at once perceive its fitness to arouse thought and 
feeling, thus leading to action and affecting their 
spiritual condition. There is no disparity between 
the means and the end. We assent to the testimony 
of Paul that the gospel is the power of God unto 
salvation to every one that believes; but we per- 
ceive no such adaptation of means to ends in the 
baptism of infants. For them the rite has no illu- 
minating or convincing power. Its pictorial and 
impressive testimony to an inward change, or even 
to the need of an inward change, is not made or 
appropriated by them. They are simply passive 
subjects, unconscious of any spiritual meaning in 
what is done. If the Spirit of God works at all 
through the medium of consecrated water, it must 
work in a merely physical way, utterly foreign to 
the spiritual character of the Christian religion as 
this is described in the New Testament. 

Thirdly, our conviction, that the only proper sub- 
jects of baptism are persons who trust in Jesus 
Christ as their Redeemer and Lord, is supported 
by the history of Christendom. This proposition 
cannot be fully justified in a brief article. A tho- 
rough discussion of the events which are believed 
to justify it would fill more than one respectable 
volume. But the* principle on which the argument 
for our proposition rests is obvious and sound — 
namely, that a rule for Christian action in church 
life, which has been found conducive to purity in 
that life, is presumably founded on the will of 



156 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

Christ. And if any important modification of the 
rule can be shown to have marred the peace or 
spirituality of that life in its corporate manifesta- 
tions, this fact will also go to confirm the rule as an 
expression of the Lord's will. 

Now, it may be said, in brief, that the practice 
of restricting baptism to believers in Christ has 
always been a protest against the dogma of bap- 
tismal regeneration, and, by parity of reason, 
against the whole theory of sacramental grace. It 
has also been an obstacle to the union of Church 
and State and to the use of civil power in support 
of religion. There were a few Munsterites among 
the Anabaptists of Germany, but most of the Ana- 
baptists were peaceable citizens, dying for their 
faith, but not fighting for it. And so it has been 
everywhere with Christians who have rejected in- 
fant baptism. They have been often subject to 
persecution, but have consistently refused to perse- 
cute others. And this has been the logical outcome 
of their position as to the proper subjects of bap- 
tism — a position which puts upon every soul of man 
the responsibility of deciding for himself concern- 
ing the service of God. 

It has been truly said that ideas in the long run 
bear rule, that the beliefs of men determine their 
conduct. It is, therefore, of the first importance 
that our belief concerning the proper subjects of 
baptism should agree, first, with a true conception 
of the Christian religion; secondly, with a true con- 
ception of Christian churches as groups of men and 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 157 

women united together of their own choice for the 
service of Christ; and, thirdly, with a true concep- 
tion of the relation of both these to the State, 
which is entrusted by the will of God with civil 
authority. And if, as the writer seriously holds, 
the Baptist position is the only safe and defensible 
one, it must be maintained with the utmost firmness 
and charity. 
Newton Centre, Mass. 



158 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

CHAPTER III. 
The Case for Immersion at Present. 

BY E. Y. MULLINS, D. D., LL.D., PRESIDENT OP THE 

SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, 

LOUISVILLE, KY. 

For one man to shout, "It is!" and another to 
shout back, "It is not!" — a reiterated affirmation 
on the one hand and a reiterated denial on the 
other — is a see-saw of contradiction, rather than a 
logical process. It must be confessed that the long- 
drawn baptismal controversy sometimes seems to 
degenerate into such a contradiction, issuing in lit- 
tle progress towards unanimity, or other fruits of 
the Spirit. The careful observer, however, will 
find evidences of an awakening conscience in many 
quarters on this subject, and it cannot be in vain 
for Baptists, in all charity, to continue to affirm 
their strong conviction on a matter whicn so large 
a portion of the Christian world seems determined 
to ignore. 

"The Case for Immersion at Present" is the theme 
assigned to me. An adequate statement of "the 
case" will require some space, and some patience on 
the part of tho reader. 

THE MEANING OF THE WORD. 

The case for immersion, as based upon the mean- 
ing of the Greek word translated "baptize" in our 
English Bible, is as convincing as it is possible for 
evidence to make it. The purposes of this article 
require a brief presentation of this evidence. Lid- 




E. Y. MULLINS, LL.D., 
President Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. 



THE CASE FOB IMMERSION AT PRESENT. 159 

dell & Scott's Greek Lexicon is a universally ac- 
cepted standard among scholars. It gives immer- 
sion, and immersion only, as the meaning of the 
Greek word baptizo. This applies to classic as well 
as New Testament Greek. Grimm's Wilke's Lexi- 
con of New Testament Greek says the word means 
to submerge, to wash by submerging. In the New 
Testament the word means "an immersion in water, 
intended as a sign of sins washed away, &c." This 
lexicon gives no other meaning of the word. Cre- 
mer's Lexicon says the word means "submerge," 
and in the New Testament "submersion for a reli- 
gious purpose." Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon 
of the New Testament, which is a translation, re- 
vision, and enlargement of Grimm's Wilke's Lexi- 
con, gives an extended definition of baptizo in its 
various New Testament connections, and it is uni- 
formly the same as in the lexicons named above — 
to submerge, to dip, to plunge. The figurative uses 
of the word are all based upon tne same meaning. 
Testimony from other lexicons might be given. I 
will only add that of Professor Sophocles, in his 
Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine period, 
from B. C. 140 to A. D. 1100. He gives the mean- 
ing which is found in all the standard lexicons — to 
dip, plunge, submerge. In addition, he cites Igna- 
tius, Justin Martyr, Gregory, Epiphanius, Origen, 
Cyril, and others of the earthly fathers, in proof 
of this meaning. The testimony of the fathers is 
well-nigh universal in favor of immersion for over 
400 years. Modern Greeks regard the translation 
of the word baptizo, "to sprinkle," as absurd. Dr. 



160 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

Broadus quotes a modern Greek scholar as saying: 
"The church of the West commits an abuse of words 
and of ideas in practising baptism by aspersion, 
the mere statement of which is itself a ridiculous 
contradiction." 

The above position is abundantly sustained on 
the authority of the reformers of the sixteenth cen- 
tury, as well as by evidence from great numbers of 
modern scholars. Martin Luther advocated a re- 
turn to immersion as the New Testament form of 
baptism. John Calvin admitted that immersion 
only was the original mode, but that the form was 
a matter of indifference. Dr. Doellinger, a Roman 
Catholic scholar of very high standing, has said 
that, as to the mode of baptism, "the Baptists are, 
from the Protestant standpoint, unassailable, since 
for their demand of baptism by submersion they 
have the clear Bible text" Innumerable modern 
scholars of all denominations maintain the posi- 
tion that immersion only was the New Testament 
form of baptism. In Germany, two names of in- 
terest are Meyer, the great commentator, and Har- 
nack, the great historian. The latter wrote, some 
years ago, a very interesting letter to Dr. C. E. W. 
Dobbs, in reply to questions about the meaning of 
the Greek word, and especially as to whether a 
"sacred sense" of the word baptizein is ever to be 
understood, allowing sprinkling instead of immer- 
sion. Dr. Harnack wrote, in part, as follows: 
"Baptizein undoubtedly signifies immersion. No 
proof can be found that it signifies anything else in 



THE CASE FOB IMMERSION AT PRESENT. 161 

the New Testament, and in the most ancient Chris- 
tian literature. The suggestion regarding a sacred 
sense is out oj! the question. There is no passage 
in the New Testament which suggests the supposi- 
tion that any New Testament author attached to the 
word any other sense than to immerse." Dr. Har- 
nack wrote the above as a statement on "the present 
state of opinion among German scholars." 

Besides the above, practically all the great names 
of scholars of the Church of England who have ex- 
pressed themselves on the point might be quoted 
in support of the view that immersion, and immer- 
sion only, was the form of baptism taught by the 
New Testament. 

In view of the above array of evidence, it would 
seem that "the case for immersion at present" is 
closed, if we confine our view to the meaning of the 
Greek word of which it is the translation. 

THE "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES." 

The above document revived interest in the bap- 
tismal controversy upon its publication, some seven- 
teen years ago. Being a witness raised up out of 
its grave, so to speak, in the Jerusalem library, and 
dating from about the middle of the second cen- 
tury, its testimony as to baptism was examined 
with great eagerness by all parties. Both im- 
mersionists and anti-immersionists claimed the 
document in confirmation of their respective views. 
Baptists have every reason for the claim that 
in no degree uoes the "Teaching of the Twelve" 
weaken their position as to the teaching of the 



1G2 BAPTIST PBINCTPLES EESET. 

New Testament. Its instructions on the subject of 
baptism are pronounced in favor of immersion. In 
brief, it directs that baptism shall be "in living 
water; and if this be not convenient, in other water; 
and if not in cold water, baptize in warm." Finally, 
if water in sufficient quantity for immersion be not 
found, then "pour water thrice upon the head in 
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." It 
is perfectly clear from the testimony of the "Teach- 
ing" that its writer held to immersion as the origi- 
nal and proper mode of baptism. The fact that 
pouring as an alternative mode in certain contin- 
gencies is prescribed does not destroy the force of 
the teaching as to immersion. The only open ques- 
tion which is left by this document is whether or 
not the direction about pouring was, in the mind of 
its author, based upon apostolic example and pre- 
cept, or upon other considerations. The evidence in 
favor of the latter view is overwhelming. The fol- 
lowing facts shed light on the point. Cyprian (A. 
D. 200-257) wrote a tract in defence of clinical bap- 
tism (i. e., baptism of sick people), against those 
who denied its validity. It was commonly held 
about this time that, although in certain cases of 
sickness pouring was allowable as a substitute for 
immersion, it was defective baptism and disquali- 
fied for the priesthood. Moreover, Schaff says it 
was probably because Novatian had been baptized 
by aspersion, when on a sick-bed, that he failed of 
re-election to the see of Rome, and that this fact 
became "the occasion of a subsequent schism which 



THE CASE FOR IMMERSION AT PRESENT. 163 

attended his name." As to the existence in the 
age after the apostles of substitutes for immersion, 
Baptists do not make denial. But the very fact 
that the substitutes are never adhered to as resting 
on scriptural authority, and the further fact that 
they are dealt with and treated as departures from 
the customary mode, and especially because it was 
necessary to defend them against many who re- 
jected them, the conclusion is unavoidable that they 
arose after apostolic times. The adequate cause for 
their introduction is found in the exaggerated im- 
portance attached to baptism, and the supposed 
peril of unbaptized persons at the point of death. 
The Greek word employed in "The Teaching" to set 
forth the three-fold pouring which is admitted as a 
last resort is a word never once usel. in the New 
Testament in connection with baptism. 

THE WITNESS OF HISTORY. 

Let us glance at the case for immersion as wit- 
nessed by Christian history. The briefest survey 
is all that is possible within the limits of this 
article. The following are the facts: First of all, 
there is no shred of evidence that the New Testa- 
ment form of baptism (immersion) was ever de- 
parted from in New Testament times. At an early 
date, however, clinic baptisms by pouring or sprink- 
ling came into vogue. These clinic baptisms were 
not the rule, but the exception, and were practised 
for the benefit of the sick, and were never urged 
on direct scriptural grounds. Immersion continued 
to be the usual and the preferred mode for over a 



164 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

thousand years. In the Greek church, immersion 
has ever been and is still the practice. The longer 
catechism of the Russian church declares that 
"trine immersion in water is most essential." Simi- 
lar witness is borne by Professor Philaret Bap- 
heidos, of the Russian church, and author of a 
Church History, and many other living writers 
testify to the same effect. In the Roman church, 
immersion continued the rule until the thirteenth 
century. In the Anglican church, there is abun- 
dant evidence in favor of immersion as the ancient 
and biblical form of baptism. Ii theory, the church 
of England still holds to immersion, as is evi- 
denced by the Prayer Book and other authorities. 
In the rubric of the Church of England we read, 
as to the baptism of infants: "Shall dip the child 
in water; but, if they certify that the child is 
weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it." The 
witness of Christian history is, therefore, conclu- 
sive as to the original mode of baptism. The ad- 
mission of other forms was due to circumstances 
and expediency, and not to Scripture teaching. 
The Protestant world which practices sprinkling, 
therefore, must maintain it on grounds which are 
at variance with the fundamental principle of 
Protestants — the Bible alone the authority in mat- 
ters of faith and practice. 

IMMERSION VIEWED IN ITS RELATIONS. 

Baptism, when viewed in its relations, strongly 
reinforces our contention for immersion as distin- 
guished from all other so-called modes of baptism. 



THE CASE FOB IMMERSION AT PRESENT. 165 

This ordinance is not to be viewed apart from its 
connections in the Christian system. For one thing, 
it is related in its very form to most vital Chris- 
tian doctrine. Death, burial, and resurrection are 
strikingly symbolized by the act of baptism. A 
complete purification and cleansing from sin are 
also thus set forth. A death to the old, a resurrec- 
tion to a new life, are among the truths which re- 
ceive graphic portrayal in the baptismal act of obe- 
dience to Christ. Rev. William Sandy, D. D., 
LL. D., author of a very able recent commentary 
on Romans, says, in connection with Rom. vi. 1-14: 
"Baptism expresses symbolically a series of acts 
corresponding to the redeeming acts of Christ: 
Immersion — death; submersion — burial (the rati- 
fication of death) ; emergence — resurrection." Now, 
so far from being unimportant because a mere 
external form, is baptism, its real importance 
arises from the fact that it is a form. Now, we do 
not exalt the ordinance of baptism over against the 
truth of the atonement or other great doctrines, 
and declare them of equal importance. Such com- 
parisons are unnecessary. To set forms against 
doctrines, or doctrines against forms, is a thing un- 
warranted by Scripture. To arrive at an under- 
standing of the importance of a form, we must 
inquire what use it subserves as a form, and what 
authority enjoins the form. As to the latter, Christ 
has spoken. This must suffice for all who accept 
him as Lord. As to the former, baptism as a sym- 
bol must remain unchanged in form. Symbols, in 



166 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

the nature of the case, cannot save. They can 
only represent pre-existing spiritual life. As a 
symbol, form is everything. This, is true because 
only forms can serve as symbols.' Truths cannot 
be symbolized by other truths. Abstract teachings 
cannot be symbolized by other abstractions. The 
fitness of the form to shadow forth truth is the de- 
terminative principle in the institution of forms. 
The ritualistic system of the Old Testament illus- 
trates this at every point. Hence it follows that in 
symbolics form is all-important. Understand me; 
I do not say form is all-important in itself, or as 
compared with doctrine and life, but form, when 
employed as a means of setting forth truth — form 
utilized as a symbol — is all-important. This is 
true because form as a symbol is a "mould of doc- 
trine." ' The doctrine is contained in the symbol as 
water is contained in a vessel. To mar the form is 
to destroy the doctrine, so far as the agency of the 
form is concerned, just as to break the vessel is to 
spill the water. Its utility as a symbol is gone the 
moment you alter its form. Then, too, to change 
baptism from immersion to sprinkling, when we 
remember the symbolic uses of the ordinance, is 
really to make less of doctrine than of form; for it 
is to make doctrine wait on form, rather than form 
on doctrine. If doctrine is important in compari- 
son with form, then we should begin with doc- 
trine, and make the symbol conform to the require- . 
ments of doctrine. When we alter the form, we 
compel the doctrine to take its chances for adequate 



THE CASE FOB IMMERSION AT PRESENT. 167 

representation in a mutilated form. Doctrine is the 
jewel, form is the casket. Caskets are made for 
jewels, not jewels for caskets. Who ever heard of 
a dealer manufacturing a set of handsome jewel- 
cases, and then casting about for jewels to fit them? 
Baptists desire that the jewel of doctrine shall abide 
in its pristine beauty, and that the casket of a 
symbol shall match it in form, as in the beginning. 
Another thought related to the foregoing is that 
Jesus always viewed things in their totality, and 
not in fragments. He enjoins truth and its ex- 
pression. The tree is vindicated by its fruits; 
words are made good by deeds; life is authenti- 
cated by conduct. So, also, faith ripens into ex- 
pression. The internal and the external are re- 
quired to complete the Christian act. ^Baptism is 
the outward expression of the inward change. 
Baptism by immersion is not only the fitting ex- 
pression of the inner life, it is the neccessary com- 
plement to the Lord's supper. The two ordinances 
shadow forth the supreme facts of the gospel. 
Christ's death is symbolized in the supper, his 
burial and resurrection in the ordinance of bap- 
tism. Thus, in their relations to the Christian sys- 
tem, baptism and the supper occupy a position of 
unique value. They serve as a medium for the ex- 
hibition in striking form of the chief fundamental 
and vital facts as to Christ and .he Christian'. Was 
not this comprehensiveness a part of the design of 
Christ in instituting the ordinances? Is it not evi- 
dent that he meant these forms to serve as visible 



1(58 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

instrumentalities for thus setting forth before the 
eyes of men a complete gospel? If this complete- 
ness of representation was a part of Christ's origi- 
nal design, can we depart from the forms, which 
are necessary to the symbolic completeness, without 
violating Christ's will? We must find Christ's 
point of view in leaving the ordinances to his 
churches, as well as seek to understand their sig- 
nificance; and, having found his point of view, we 
must adopt it as our own. The owner of certain 
grounds desired a landscape gardener's services to 
lay them out with a view to a given effect from the 
portico of his residence, which stood on an eleva- 
tion in the midst of the grounds. The gardener, 
during an absence of the owner, discovered what he 
regarded as a better effect from a different point 
of view, and laid out the grounds accordingly. But 
he was summarily dismissed upon the owner's re- 
turn, because of his disobedience, and because his 
new point of view left out of account the chief item 
in the owner's plan — viz., the effect from the portico 
of his residence. vs The ordinances of baptism and 
the supper constitute a ceremonial survey of the 
landscape of Christian fact and doctrine, compre- 
hending the chief vital facts. To break the form 
of baptism is to eliminate a part of its doctrinal 
significance. Sprjnlding cannot symbolize burial 
and resurrection. ' The ordinance is thus left a 
mere fragmentary representation. Thenceforth the 
ordinances cease to give the completeness of repre- 



THE CASE FOR IMMERSION AT PRESENT. 169 

sentation which Christ designed. We thus lose his 
point of view. 

It thus appears that an ordinance even must be 
viewed in its relations before it can be understood. 
As a mere form, it is nothing. As a form employed 
to symbolize vital truth, and as a supplement to 
another form symbolically setting forth other truth, 
and as a part of an arrangement for the complete 
exhibition of a group of truths, prescribed by a 
supreme will, it is much. A very minute wheel 
lying on a jeweller's table is an insignificant thing; 
as a part of the machinery of a watch, it is indis- 
pensable; for without the tiny wheel the watch 
would not run, and would cease to nave utility as a 
timepiece. 

THE OTHER SIDE. 

Various arguments and objections have been 
urged against the Baptist position. I can scarcely 
do more than name some of the more popular of 
these, and then briefly reply to the more important. 

The old claim that the scarcity of water in Jeru- 
salem must have prevented the immersion of 3,0C0 
converts in one day by twelve men is met by the 
well-known fact that Jerusalem was amply provided 
with large pools and a water supply which sus- 
tained it through numerous sieges of several 
months duration, and when the supply was ex- 
hausted on the outside, it was abundant inside the 
city; and by tLe further demonstration, in the im- 
mersion of our Telugu converts, of the ability of 
twelve men to perform the above task. The claim 



170 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

for a "sacred sense" of the word baptizo in the 
Scriptures has never been made out, and is dis- 
tinctly negatived by the consensus of German 
scholarship, as represented by Professor Harnack, 
as well as the great mass of scholars of all Chris- 
tian nations. The plea for sprinkling, on the 
ground that immersion is not always "practicable," 
is met by the explanation that what is "impracti- 
cable" is what cannot be done, and that what can- 
not be done is never commanded. The force of the 
argument based on the rigors of the colder climates 
is neutralized by the fact that in cold England im- 
mersion continued much longer than in Spain and 
some of the warmer climates of the south. The 
fact that many learned and good men have be- 
lieved in sprinkling, which is a solace to some, 
should not stand a moment as an excuse for per- 
sonal investigation on the part of all, and personal 
obedience to the commands of Christ. Few of the 
errors of Christian history in doctrine and life are 
without learned and good men as their advocates. 
It was often thus that they originated. Over 
against this fact is another, far more significant — 
viz., that there is an increasing demand for immer- 
sion on the part of the common people, with their 
English Bible in their hands. This demand is wit- 
nessed to a greater or less extent in every Protest- 
ant community. It has reached such proportions 
in the Church of England that more than 100 bap- 
tisteries, according to The Freeman, have been 
erected in recent years for the baptism of adults, 
and others are in process of construction. The 



THE CASE FOR IMMERSION AT PRESENT. 171 

truth is that, although the word "baptize" is not a 
translation, but a transference of the Greek origi- 
nal — thus obscuring its meaning — nevertheless, the 
act of baptism as described in the English Bible, 
and as expounded especially in the Epistles, is con- 
vincing in itself as to mode. The passages describ- 
ing the baptism of Jesus in Jordan and the baptism 
of the Ethiopian, as well as other Scriptures, leave 
no escape for the plain reader from the conclusion 
that immersion is the baptism commanded in the 
New Testament. 

There are two really important arguments against 
our position — important not in themselves, but in 
their prevalence and power over men. The first is 
that the church has the power to alter the form of 
baptism. This is the view of Roman Catholics. I 
need not delay to reply to it in detail. It raises 
the larger question as to the authority of the 
church. Baptists can never admit that any church 
is co-ordinate in authority with Christ himself. 
The Protestant world is guilty of a gross inconsist- 
ency whenever it admits the principle for a mo-, 
ment. The Bible, and the Bible only, as Christ's 
revealed will, is authority for Protestants in mat- 
ters of religion. Hence the clear-cut deliverance of 
Dr, Doellinger, as given earlier in this article. 
Roman Catholics grasp this vital distinction better 
than some who claim to oppose them. 

The second of these important arguments is that 
based on Christian liberty. Among the scholars 
and the well-informed laity of to-day in all denomi- 



172 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

nations which do not practise immersion this is 
the final and sufficient ground, consciously or un- 
consciously held, for adherence to another mode. 
The case for immersion as the original New Testa- 
ment teaching and practice has been so completely 
made out that another position has become neces- 
sary. "If you retain the essence" they say, "you 
are not obliged to do more in matters of form; 
Christian liberty relieves you from slavish obedi- 
ence in externals." The sufficient Baptist reply is 
not far to seek. In the first place, Christian liberty 
never admits of departure from positive commands 
which are of permanent obligation. In the applica- 
tion of general principles to specific cases which 
may arise, it is true that Christian liberty some- 
times allows room for variation in conduct. But 
not in definite, positive commands. Now, those 
who practise sprinkling maintain that baptism is 
an ordinance of permanent obligation, and binding 
because commanded by Christ. As a symbol it sets 
forth certain doctrines. To retain the "essence" 
of the symbol, we must retain its form, as has 
already been shown. To alter the form so as to 
deprive it of power to symbolize death, burial, and 
resurrection, is to rob it of a part of its "essence" 
as a symbol. If Christian liberty is to be pleaded 
in the case, the Quakers alone represent the con- 
sistent position; for liberty to alter a form implies 
liberty to reject it entirely. Indeed, in this case, 
to alter is to reject in part, because to alter the form 
is in part to uestroy the meaning. To reject in 



THE CASE FOR IMMERSION AT PRESENT. 173 

part involves liberty to reject altogether. The 
Quakers do this. U to the Quaker it should seem 
allowable, in the name of liberty, to reject baptism 
as a symbol of purification, burial, and resurrec- 
tion, why should it seem allowable for a Methodist 
in the name of liberty to retain it as a symbol of 
purification, and reject it as a symbol of burial and 
resurrection? Why split the ordinance into parts, 
and deal with one part on the principle of obedi- 
ence, and with the other on the principle of liberty? 
There is no middle ground between Baptists and 
Romanists on the issue as to the relative authority 
of the Scriptures and the church, and there is no 
middle ground between Baptists and Quakers on 
the issue as to the principle of Christian liberty in 
the matter of baptism. 

Our survey of "the case for immersion at present" 
brings us to the following conclusion: That, in 
view of the classical and New Testament meaning 
of the Greek word for baptize, as learned from 
standard lexicons; in view of the testimony of the 
Christian fathers of the early centuries; in view 
of the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles"; in view 
of the testimony of Christian history; in view of 
the symbolic significance of baptism and the rela- 
tion of its form to truth, to the Lord's supper, to 
the will of Christ; and in view of the authoritative- 
ness of the Bible, and of any proper interpretation 
of Christian liberty, the case for immersion seems 
abundantly proved. 

Reader, have you obeyed your Lord in his ap- 



174 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

pointed ordinance? Have you the witness of a 
conscience void of offence in this matter? Do you 
know the joy of obedience, which is vouchsafed to 
all who take up their cross and follow their Lord 
into the experience which he knew as he entered 
the waters of Jordan, saying, "Thus it becometh us 
to fulfil all righteousness"? 




HOWARD OSGOOD, LX.D., 
Rochester Theological Seminary. 



ARCHAEOLOGY OF BAPTISM. 175 

CHAPTER IV. 

Archaeology pf Baptism— The Bath, under the Old 
Testament. 

BY HOWARD OSGOOD, ROCHESTER, N. Y. 

Bread and wine, the symbols of the support of 
life, were brought forth by Melchizceck to greet 
Abraham; they were constant symbols on the 
golden table in the tent and temples, and the in- 
variable accompaniment of the Passover feast. 
These simplest of all symbols were filled with 
deeper meaning than they had ever borne when 
Christ made them the memorials of his broken body 
and his blood poured out. The custom of dipping 
the person in water, common from the earliest times 
in Israel as a religious rite of impressive and 
spiritual import, was made by God the witness of 
Christ in his all-comprehending life and death and 
resurrection for us. 

One of the unexpected revelations of the count- 
less Egyptian monuments, by their inscriptions 
and pictures, is that for at least a thousand years 
before Moses, they were a people of excessive and 
minute cleanliness, especially with regard to reli- 
gious services. 

The laws concerning cleansing, given by God 
through Moses, were not something far off from 
the thought of that age. These laws are far stricter 
in this matter of cleanliness than any of our present 
codes. Cleanliness of person, of dress of house, 



176 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

of furniture, of utensils, of habits, of food, was 
prescribed with minute insistence. The Israelite 
who from the heart strove to be true to the teach- 
ing of God was, in consequence, an excessively clean 
man. No priest and no others could take part in 
the sacrifices and services of the temple or even in 
the Passover with any uncleanness upon him, un- 
der the penalty of being cut off from his people. 
There were less and greater uncleannesses. Some 
of these rendered unclean for a day only. Others 
could only be put away by ceremonies continued 
through a week. The greater bodily unclean- 
nesses were contracted by being in the house of a 
dead person, touching any dead body or a bone of a 
man or a grave, by leprosy, etc. Of course, these 
were typical, and the cleansing was merely "unto 
the cleanness of the flesh," for the greatest of all 
uncleannesses, that which by the teaching of God 
defiled soul and body with utter abomination, was 
turning from the heart worship of the only God to 
serve idols, the work of men's hands. That is the 
uncleanness that sends its poison through every 
nerve and vein. 

The lesser uncleannesses were put away by wash- 
ing the clothes and bathing, immersing the body in 
water. But the greater uncleannesses could be put 
away only by ceremonies continued through a whole 
week. That which concluded them all was the im- 
mersion of the body in water, the bath, which im- 
mediately preceded the sacrifice offered on the 
eighth day. 



ARCHAEOLOGY OF BAPTISM. 177 

From the very numerous causes of defilement, 
seen and unseen, no Israelite could be sure of his 
being ceremonially clean. And hence the bath was 
a constant religious necessity, frequently repeated, 
and always taken before offering sacrifice. Its 
high importance in the service of the temple is 
marked on the greatest of all the high days of 
Israel, the day of atonement, when the high priest, 
though he had bathed before, was required during 
those supreme services to "bathe his flesh in water" 
when he exchanged his usual dress for the holy 
linen garments, and again when he put off the holy 
linen to take his usual dress. 

What the form of this washing (bath) was, how 
it was clearly understood in Western Asia, is plain 
from Elisha's direction to Naaman the Syrian, "Go 
and wash in the Jordan seven times." "Then went 
he down and dipped himself seven times in the Jor- 
dan, according to the saying of the man of God." 
The New Testament terms these various washings, 
baths, "various dippings," "baptisms" (Heb. ix. 10). 
And when Pedobaptist Hebrew scholars of the first 
class, like the Lutheran Delitzsch, and Salkinson, 
translate the New Testament into its corresponding 
Hebrew, they must use for baptism and these vari- 
ous washings the Old Testament terms signifying 
washing, dipping. The authoritative Jewish writ- 
ings on these subjects from New Testament days 
teach that these ceremonial washings were com- 
plete immersions. The great Christian writers for 
five centuries after Christ use the terms "washing" 

12 



178 EAPTIST PRINCIPLES PvESET. 

and "bath" for baptism quite as often as they use 
the specific New Testament term. And in this they 
are only following the example of the New Testa- 
ment. Acts xxii. 16; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Eph. v. 26; 
Tit. iii. 5; Heb. ix. 10; x. 22. 

That this ritual washing, dipping, bath, was un- 
derstood in its spiritual typical import by spiritu- 
ally-minded men under the Old Testament is shown 
by the cry out of the depths from Israel's king re- 
turning from his long and foul uncleannesses: 
"Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity and 
cleanse me from my sin." And, referring especially 
to the cleansing from the greater uncleanness by 
sprinkling from a bunch of hyssop twigs the ashes 
of the red heifer (Num. xix. 18, 19): "Cleanse me 
with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I 
shall be whiter than snow." The presumptuous are 
warned away by God: "Wash you, make you clean," 
for Zion's dawn shall not appear till "the filth of 
her daughters has been washed away." 

Our eyes and our thoughts have been so far re- 
stricted to the one word "baptism" and its signifi- 
cance after Christ that we have overlooked the same 
fact under another term, "washing," "bathe," with 
its spiritual significance under the Old Testament. 
But the New Testament does not overlook it. The 
Epistle to the Hebrews applies that older ceremony 
in both its parts with vivid realism to the new 
condition: "Let us draw near with a true heart in 
fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from 
an evil conscience and our body washed with pure 



ARCHAEOLOGY OF BAPTISM. 179 

water." To the Corinthians, befouled with all the 
uncleannesses of heathenism, Paul says: "Such 
were some of you, but ye washed yourselves, but ye 
were sanctified," etc. And, in the Epistles to the 
Ephesians and to Titus, Paul uses the term "bath" 
with plain reference to the custom of the Old Testa- 
ment applied to the New; and still further in that 
beautiful word painting of Christ's bringing the 
church to himself (the washing and renewing of 
the garments was always prescribed with the bath) : 
"As Christ loved the church and gave himself up 
for it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed 
it by the bath of water with the word, that he 
might present the church to himself a glorious 
church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such 
thing; but that it should be ioly and without blem- 
ish." 

It has been assumed, against the facts, that there 
was no ceremony ordained by the law of God for 
the reception of proselytes from the heathen. But 
the law certainly provided for the reception of 
slaves purchased from the heathen, as well as for 
captives by war. And the Pentateuch tells us of 
one foreigner wLo became eminent in Israel, Caleb 
the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite. The succeed- 
ing books tell us of Rahab the Canaanitess, the 
Hivites who became servants of the house of God, 
Othniel the son of Kenaz, Heber a Midianite, the 
lovely Moabitess Ruth, and others. Was the only 
rite of reception for men? Was thero no ceremony 
for the reception of Rahab and Ruth? 



180 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

The mistake in assuming that the law did not 
provide for the reception of converts from the 
heathen has arisen from a forgetfulness of the 
reiterated statute of the law, that there shall be one 
and the same law for the homeborn Israelite and for 
the alien who would come near to sacrifice to God. 
Ex. xii. 49; Lev. xvii. 16; xxiv. 22; Num.ix.14; xv.14- 
16, 29-31; xix. 10. The Israelite could be cleansed 
from the greater uncleannesses only by certain cere- 
monies. The alien coming to take refuge under the 
wings of Jehovah could be cleansed from his un- 
cleannesses just as Israel was from his. The bath 
and the sacrifice, the bath and the sacrifice — these 
were the two rites that stood out most prominently 
in their reception. It is to these ceremonies of 
cleansing, the sprinkling of the ashes of the red 
heifer, to be followed by the bath and the sacrifice, 
that God himself refers when, in his glowing 
prophecy of bringing back his people from all the 
uncleannesses of their idolatry in Babylon, he says: 
"I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall 
be clean; from all your filthiness and from all your 
idols will I cleanse you." Ezek. xxxvi. 25. As is 
so frequent in the Bible, a part of the week's cere- 
mony is here put for the whole. If Israel — that 
was said by God to be more defiled by idolatry than 
Sodom or Assyria or Egypt — could be so cleansed, 
surely those with lesser uncleannesses upon them 
could be cleansed in like manner. 

Until the appearance of John the Baptist, the dip- 
ping of the person in water was the absolute pre- 
requisite under the law for every man and woman 



ARCHAEOLOGY OF BAPTISM. 181 

who would enter the inner court to take part in the 
worship. It was as common as sacrifice. Its 
spiritual meaning was known and felt by every one 
taught by the Spirit — as David, the prophets, Joseph 
and Mary, Zacharias and Elizabeth, Simeon and 
Anna, and all who "were looking for the redemption 
of Jerusalem." 

It is not at all surprising, therefore, that, when 
John came dipping, baptizing in living, running 
water, there should be no query by the Jews as to 
the well-known custom. Their only query was as 
to John himself: "Who art thou? Art thou the 
Christ? Art thou Elijah? Art thou the prophet?" 

The great sacrifice, "once for all time," was about 
to take place, and it was in exact accordance with 
the law and the promise that those who repented of 
their sins should be dipped, baptized, "unto remis- 
sion of sins"; that is, that they might enter in and 
have part in that final really-atoning sacrifice. 
"John baptized with the baptism of repentance, 
saying unto the people that they should believe on 
him who should come after him; that is, on Jesus." 
They were baptized in expectation and hope of that 
sacrifice. We are baptized because we know it has 
taken place and we trust in it. 

That the baptism (dipping) enjoined in the New 
Testament was a complete immersion is now so 
fully acknowledged and taught by those most 
familiar with the language, customs, and history of 
that time that it is not needful to add to this dis- 
cussion. 



182 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESETS 

BAPTISM AFTER THE TIME OF CHRIST. 

From Justin Martyr (A. D. 150) onwards for 700 
years there is the united testimony of literature 
and art that baptism was a dipping, immersion of 
the candidate. There are a few minor councils that, 
with Cyprian of Carthage, advocated a sprinkling 
of the body of a dying man, in case he had not 
received baptism; but none of the great authors 
or the numerous rituals or the great councils ac- 
knowledged this exception, even in the case of the 
dying. With united voice they teach that immer- 
sion, most frequently repeated thrice — that is, at 
each name of the Trinity — is the only baptism, and 
anathematize all who would teach differently. The 
Egyptian ritual, A. D. 200-300; the Roman ritual, 
A. D. 250; the Apostolic Constitutions, A. D. 350- 
400; the church of Palestine, A. D. 386; the Mi- 
lanese church, A. D. 397; Chrysostom, the Grego- 
ries, Augustine, about A. D. 400; Dionysius, A. D. 
450, and many lesser authorities, all agree that all 
around the Mediterranean, in Europe, Asia, and 
Africa, there was but one baptism, trine immersion. 
But for trine immersion there is no warrant in the 
New Testament. 

What the "washing" of the Jews at tnis date 
was we know from the twelve treatises on purifi- 
cation in the heart of the Talmud, the Mishna. 
Every one, even with any of the lesser unclean- 
nesses upon him, must dip his body wholly under 
water, and the least quantity of water sufficient for 
this purpose was put at eighty gallons. No excep- 



ARCHAEOLOGY OF BAPTISM. 188 

tion is allowed to this requirement. That the Jew- 
ish washing and Christian baptism were the same 
in form is proved by Tertullian's (A. D. 220) argu- 
ment that the difference consisted in the secret 
power of God conveyed in baptism. 

From A. D. 450 there is a long series of pictorial 
representations of baptism, found in churches, cata- 
combs, manuscripts, etc., etc. They all follow 
closely one type— the baptism of Jesus by John in 
the Jordan. The Saviour stands in the water, John 
stands on the bank and extends his hand over 
the head of Jesus. There are no representations 
for 800 years after Christ of the baptizer being in 
the water with the candidate, and the literature on 
this point is very decided — the baptizer is outside 
the baptistery. 

What, then, was the action of the baptizer and 
of the candidate? Here the literature, Christian and 
Jewish, comes in to confirm the uniform represen- 
tation in art. The candidate entered the baptistery, 
either alone or attended by a friend, the minister 
placed his hand upon the head of the candidate, 
pronouncing the words, and the candidate bowed 
his head forward beneath the water. In this, litera- 
ture and rituals agree. There can be no doubt 
that this was the usual, though not exclusive, action 
in New Testament times and for hundreds of years 
afterwards. To baptize one's self and to be bap- 
tized are expressions found in the New Testament, 
and more frequently in Christian writers of the fol- 
lowing centuries. For instance, in Acts xxii. 16, 



184 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

Ananias says to Paul, "Arise and baptize, immerse 
thyself" (though it is wrongly put in the old and 
new versions, "be baptized"). So in 1 Cor. vi. 11, 
"Ye washed yourselves" (in the old and new ver- 
sions, "Ye are, were washed"). 

The following witnesses, among many others, 
show the custom in their days: 

The Christian church in Rome (A. D. 250) ob- 
served the following custom: "Then the candidate 
descends into the water, but the elder ('who stands 
above the water') places his hand upon his head 
and asks him in these words: Dost thou believe 
in God the Father almighty? The candidate an- 
swers: I believe. Then for the first time he is 
immersed in the water. Again he asks him in these 
words: Dost thou believe in Jesus Christ, the Son 
of God, whom the virgin bore by the Holy Spirit, 
who came to save men, who was crucified for us 
under Pontius Pilate, who died and arose from the 
dead on the third day and ascended to heaven and 
sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come 
to judge the living and the dead? He answers: I 
believe; and the second time he is immersed in the 
water. He is asked the third time: Dost thou be- 
lieve in the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, proceeding 
from the Father and the Son. He answers: I be- 
lieve; and the third time he is immersed in the 
water. At each of these times he (the elder) says: 
I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Canons of Hippo- 
lytus, sections 123-133. And in accord with this, 



ARCHAEOLOGY OF BAPTISM. 185 

Hippolytus, in his "Divine Theophany," tells us: 
"Christ bowed his head to be baptized by John." 

Gregory Thaumaturgus (A. D. 270) sets before 
us his idea of the hesitation of John to touch the 
head of Jesus to baptize him. "How shall I dare 
to touch thine immaculate head? How shall I 
extend my servant fingers over thy divine head?" 
And Jesus is said to reply: "Lend me, Baptizer, 
thy right hand for the present dispensation. Touch 
my head. Baptize me." "The Baptizer obeyed the 
divine command, and, stretching out his gently 
trembling and rejoicing right hand, he baptized 
the Lord." 

Cyril of Jerusalem (A. D. 386) : "Even Simon 
Magus dipped his body in water." Gregory Nyssen 
(A. D. 395) : "Coming to the water, we hide our- 
selves in it." 

Ambrose of Milan (A. D. 397): "Thou wast 
asked, Dost thou believe in God the Father Omnipo- 
tent? Thou saidst, I believe, and thou didst dip 
thyself; that is, wast buried. Again thou wast 
asked, Dost thou believe in our Lord Jesus Christ 
and in his cross? Thou saidst, I believe, and thou 
didst dip thyself; and so thou wast buried with 
Christ. The third time thou wast asked, Dost thou 
believe in the Holy Spirit? Thou saidst, I believe; 
and the third time thou didst dip thyself." 

Chrysostom (A. D.) 407: "For when we im- 
merse our heads," etc. "It is easy for us to dip and 
lift our heads again." Augustine (A. D. 407): 



186 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

"After you promised to believe, we thrice dipped 
your heads in the sacred fountain." 

It is this custom of standing in the water and 
bowing the head beneath the water that explains 
the peculiar usage of the Syrians in their very 
early translation of the New Testament and in 
their literature, where "to stand," "standing," is 
always the translation of "to baptize," "baptism," 
etc. The candidate stood up to confess Christ, and 
his baptism was standing up for Christ. 

Baptism, then, was not merely the dipping of the 
head beneath the water, but the dipping of the head 
at the same time that the minister laid his hand 
upon the head and pronounced the words of bap- 
tism. 

That this custom in baptism — standing and bow- 
ing the head, while the baptizer placed his hand 
upon the head of the candidate and pronounced the 
words of baptism 1 — was the universal custom of 
early Christianity, is the united testimony of ritual, 
literature, and art. It is simple, dignified, safe. 
The present custom generally observed in our 
churches is the invention of very recent centuries. 

To the apostle of Burma, Adoniram Judson, who 
returned to the ancient custom of baptism, and who 
united the refinement and fire of Greek Christian 
culture with absorbing gratitude and love to Christ 
his Saviour, we are indebted for the noble lines 
with which I close this paper. 

" Come, Holy Spirit, Dove divine, 
On these baptismal waters shine; 



ARCHAEOLOGY OF BAPTISM. 187 

And teach our hearts in highest strain 
To praise the Lamb for sinners slain. 

1 We love thy name, we love thy laws, 
And joyfully embrace thy cause; 
We love thy cross, the shame, the pain, 
O Lamb of God, for sinners slain. 

1 We sink beneath thy mystic flood : 
O bathe us in thy cleansing blood ! 
We die to sin and seek a grave 
With thee beneath the yielding wave. 

4 And as we rise, with thee to live, 
Oh, let the Holy Spirit give 
The sealing unction from above— 
The breath of life, the fire of love.'* 



188 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

CHAPTER V. 

Baptism the Door to the Lord's Supper. 

BY FRANKLIN JOHNSON, D. D., LL.D., OF THE UNIVER- 
SITY OF CHICAGO. 

It is my purpose to consider in this paper the 
proposition that all Christians ought to be bap- 
tized before they come to the Lord's supper. Since 
baptism is the immersion of a believer "into the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost," the proposition may take another 
verbal form, and affirm that all Christians ought to 
be immersed before they come to the Lord's supper. 
Some of my brethren proceed further, and teach 
that, not only immersion, but membership in a 
Baptist church, is prerequisite. Some proceed 
even further than this, and require membership in 
the particular Baptist church by which the supper 
is announced. To consider all these propositions 
would demand more space than I have at my dis- 
posal, and hence I limit myself to the first. This, 
after all, is the decisive one. If it is left in doubt, 
the others must fall; if it is established, they will 
occasion but little difficulty, and will be treated as 
questions of administration, to be decided in the 
affirmative or in the negative without affecting the 
essential principle that baptism should precede the 
Lord's supper. Dr. Norman Fox has given me an 
additional reason for the limitation of my study to 
the one proposition in his recent statement ("The 




FRANKLIN JOHNSON, IX-D., 
University of Chicago. 



BAPTISM THE DOOR TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. 189 

Invitation to the Breaking of Bread," page 13) 
that "it has never really been discussed among Bap- 
tists," by whom "it has been thought sufficient to 
say, 'All other churches hold this view.' " 

THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE. 

If I say that the evidence in favor of the propo- 
sition is inferential, I do not disparage it. Infer- 
ential evidence is often of the strongest kind; it is 
that circumstantial evidence upon which the 
gravest cases in our courts of law are decided. 
Many great truths of our religion are known to us 
only by inference. The Christian Sabbath, as dis- 
tinguished from the Mosaic, is known to us only 
by inference. The doctrine of the Trinity is proved 
only by inference. The argument of our Lord 
against divorce (Matt. xix. 3-6) is purely inferen- 
tial. So, also, is his proof of the resurrection 
(Matt. xii. 26, 27). That there should be a Lord's 
supper at all, as distinguished from the common 
meal, is proved only by inference. 

The Baptist is not alone when he consults infer- 
ential evidence to ascertain who may properly par- 
take of the Lord's supper; he has the entire Chris- 
tian world with him, as all denominations appeal 
exclusively to this evidence. If we shall make any 
proposition whatsoever concerning the terms of ad- 
mission, we shall be compelled to support it solely 
by inferential evidence, for there is no other that 
can be produced. Three pastors — one a Baptist, 
another a Presbyterian, and the third a Methodist — 



190 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

once conversed on this subject somewhat ac fol- 
lows: 

Presbyterian to Baptist — "What passage of Scrip- 
ture commands you to limit your invitation to the 
supper to baptized believers?" 

Baptist — "There is no explicit command." 

Presbyterian — "I do not think that there should 
be any limitation for which a 'Thus saith the Lord* 
cannot be adduced." 

Methodist to Presbyterian — "I quite agree with 
you." 

Baptist to Presbyterian — "What invitation do you 
give?" 

Presbyterian — "I invite all members of evangeli- 
cal churches." 

Baptist — "And where do you find - 'Thus saith 
the Lord* for that?" 

Methodist, after a moment of silence — "But I in- 
vite all who love Christ, whether they are members 
of evangelical churches or not." 

Baptist — "And where do you find a 'Thus saith 
the Lord' for that?" 

Baptist, after some moments of silence — "It ap- 
pears that each of you establishes a limitation, and 
that neither of you can find an express warrant in 
Scripture for the limitation which he establishes. 
If either of you should attempt to support his limi- 
tation, his argument would be inferential. It is the 
same with the Baptist, except that his inferential 
evidence is cogent, while that which could be ad- 
duced for either of the limitations you have men- 
tioned would be feeble and easily set aside." 



BAPTISM THE DOOR TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. 191 

This parable may suffice to convey my thought 
concerning the nature of the arguments with which 
I shall support the proposition that all Christians 
ought to be baptized before they come to the Lord's 
table. 

THE ARGUMENT FROM THE IMPORTANCE OF BAPTISM. 

If baptism were an ordinance of small import- 
ance, it might not be worth while to maintain its 
position as a prerequisite to the Lord's supper. 
Granting that it appears in this honorable station 
in the New Testament, this might have been the 
result of chance, or of temporary convenience, or 
of some conception peculiar to the apostolic age, 
and of no permanent value. But when we observe 
the vast importance which the New Testament at- 
taches to baptism, and the vast importance of the 
function of baptism in the history of the individual 
soul, and hence of the church, we perceive at once 
that the position of precedence assigned to it in the 
New Testament cannot be the result of accident or 
of passing circumstances. 

Our Lord was baptized at the very beginning of 
his ministry, and at the very close of his ministry 
he left a formal command to baptize every disciple; 
and thus he interwove the ordinance with his sol- 
emn inauguration as the suffering Messiah, and 
again with his solemn inauguration as the reigning 
Messiah. The heavens were opened to approve his 
baptism, and immediately after his proclamation 
of the law of baptism they were opened again to 
receive him up into glory, thus making his last 



192 BAPTIST PBINCTPLES BESET. 

words more impressive than any others. When 
the Holy Spirit distinguished the day of Pentecost 
with the overwhelming display of his regenerating 
grace, all those who repented under his influence 
were baptized, and the work of the Spirit began, 
as the work of Christ had begun, in the observance 
of this rite. The New Testament often speaks of 
baptism in such an emphatic manner as almost to 
identify it with the work of God in the soul, of 
which it is a symbol; that is, with spiritual wash- 
ing, with death to sin and resurrection from it, and 
with the removal of guilt by pardon. "Verily, 
verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of 
water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the 
kingdom of God (Jno. iii. 5). "Arise, and be bap- 
tized, and wash away thy sins" (Acts xxii. 16). 
"He saved us through the washing of regeneration 
and renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus iii. 5). 
"Which also after a true likeness doth now save 
you, even baptism, not the putting away of the 
filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good 
conscience toward God, through the resurrection 
of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. iii. 21). If we find any 
difficulty with these expressions, is it not because 
we have accustomed ourselves to regard baptism 
as a mere ceremony, a vague emblem, setting forth 
certain indefinite phases of the divine life, but not 
ministering nourishment to it? 

Thus in every way the New Testament affirms the 
importance of baptism, and does so even at the risk 
of creating the impression in some minds that the 



BAPTISM THE DOOE TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. 198 

rite contains an occult spiritual power to save the 
soul, a danger which the Holy Spirit of inspiration 
evidently deemed less hurtful than that of under- 
valuing the ordinance. 

It is sometimes said that the apostle Paul 
esteemed baptism lightly, and his statement to the 
Corinthians (1 Cor. i. 17) that "God sent him to 
preach, and not to baptize," is offered in evidence. 
This opinion is always heard, when it is heard at 
all, from persons who belong to denominations 
which have reduced baptism to a drop of water ap- 
plied to the forehead of an infant as a symbol of 
the desire of the parents and friends that it may 
be saved. As these persons reduce baptism to a 
rite without much meaning or utility, it is natural 
for them to attribute their low estimate of it to the 
apostle, whose bodily infirmities may well have 
compelled him to arrange that it should be adminis- 
tered by his assistants. Christ himself baptized 
by the hands of his disciples, and yet, as we have 
seen, he assigned to the ordinance a lofty position 
in his example and his instructions to his church; 
and if the apostle Paul, under the compulsion of 
infirmity, had baptism administered by his assist- 
ants, he thought as little as did his Master of dis- 
paraging the holy ordinance. The apostle does not 
say that those to whom he wrote had not been bap- 
tized; indeed, the contrary is implied; and he 
merely expresses his gratification that, as events 
had turned out, the ordinance had been adminis- 
tered by others, lest some of the Christians at 

13 



194 BAPTIST PELNCIPLES BESET. 

Corinth, in the heat of partisan strife, should de- 
clare that he had baptized into his own name. So 
far is the apostle Paul from depreciating baptism, 
that he exalts it as few other writers of the New 
Testament do. "Are ye ignorant that all we who 
were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into 
his death? We were buried, therefore, with him 
through baptism into death; that, like as Christ 
was raised from the dead through the glory of the 
Father, so we also might walk in newness of life" 
(Rom. vi. 3, 4). "Having been buried with him in 
baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him 
through faith in the working of God, who raised 
him from the dead" (Col. ii. 12). It will be ob- 
served that in these passages the apostle, who is 
supposed to think lightly of baptism, associates it 
not only with the greatest truths of the gospel, the 
death and resurrection of Christ, but also with the 
greatest duty of the believer, to live in a manner 
worthy of his holy calling. 

But why is baptism exalted in the Scriptures to 
this lofty position? God is infinite reason, and he 
has not done this thing arbitrarily. He is infinite 
love, and his reasons for this act have reference to 
the salvation of men. 

The lofty position conferred upon baptism by 
Christ and his apostles and by the Spirit of inspira- 
tion is explained when we consider the functions 
of the ordinance in the history of the individual 
soul, and hence of the church. 

1. As a means of publishing the gospel to the 



BAPTISM THE DOOR TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. 195 

world, it is excelled only by the living preacher. 
Wherever it is administered, it proclaims the great 
central truths of our religion. First, in an emo- 
tional picture, in an action of incomparable appro- 
priateness and beauty, it sets forth the Saviour of 
mankind in the two moments around which thought 
and feeling chiefly cluster; in the moment of his 
burial, deserted by his disciples, and rescued from 
nameless indignities only by the intervention 
of one who had not been numbered with them, and 
in the moment of his resurrection — the first a mo- 
ment the contemplation of which plunges us into 
tears, the second a moment the contemplation of 
which exalts us to a heaven of joy and triumph. 
But, next, the ordinance sets forth the death of 
the soul to sin and its resurrection to a new life of 
holiness. If the first truth is the greatest of all 
concerning Christ, the second is the greatest of all 
concerning the Christian. But, still further, the 
ordinance sets forth our assurance of a future 
resurrection after death has done its worst against 
us. If the first and second truths are the greatest 
concerning Christ and the Christian, the third is 
the greatest of which we can think in connection 
with our destiny after our earthly career is closed. 
Now, these are the central truths of our religion. 
They are mighty when they are proclaimed by a 
faithful ministry, but they receive additional might 
when they are illustrated in the graphic action of 
baptism. Hence many thousands of happy Chris- 
tians attribute their first favorable impressions of 



196 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES KESET. 

Christianity to the overwhelming influence of bap- 
tism, as they have witnessed its administration to 
others. 

2. Not only the world, but also the church, has 
need of this preaching. Sometimes her living 
teachers err. They may lay the chief emphasis upon 
the incarnation of Christ and remand his cross to 
a secondary position. They may deny the reality 
of his resurrection. They may deny the essential 
sinfulness of the soul and its need of a radical 
change in regeneration. They may deny the future 
resurrection of the body. But baptism, where it is 
faithfully preserved and administered, continues to 
proclaim these great central truths, and to admon- 
ish those who forget them by its silent, but impres- 
sive, witness. Hence any perversion of it is a 
calamity. The church which substitutes effusion 
for it rules out of court a volume of testimony to 
the chief doctrines of the gospel which Christ him- 
self has produced, and thus renders the task of its 
misleaders far more easy. 

3. Baptism is of inestimable value to the disciple 
just born again and just entering upon a new 
course of life. His old habits of thought and feel- 
ing and action are broken, but not destroyed. He 
has within him a celestial life, but it is only push- 
ing its shoots above the soil, and is exposed to 
drought and frost and the trampling of herds, and 
it needs nourishment and shelter. At the begin- 
ning of any new and trying course of life, a mov- 
ing ceremony, which surrounds the opening of the 



BAPTISM THE DOOE TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. 197 

pathway with strong and attractive associations, 
which can never be forgotten, is a ministering 
angel. Every student of the mind recognizes the 
wisdom of making the greatest possible impression 
upon it when it forsakes some evil and determines 
to practice some virtue hitherto untried. Thus 
Bain ("The Emotions and the Will," page 453) 
says: "If we can only strike a blow with such 
power as to seize possession of a man's entire 
thoughts and voluntary dispositions for a certain 
length of time, we may succeed in launching him 
on a new career, and in keeping him in that course 
until there is time for habits to commence, and until 
a force is arrayed in favor of the present state of 
things able to cope with the tendencies and growth 
of the former life." James ("Psychology," I., 123) 
refers to this passage, and adds: "We must take 
care to launch ourselves with as strong and de- 
cided an initiative as possible. Accumulate all the 
possible circumstances which shall reinforce the 
right motives; put yourself assiduously in condi- 
tions that encourage the new way; make engage- 
ments incompatible with the old; take a public 
pledge, if the case allows; in short, develop your 
resolution by every aid you know." 

If this teaching of the psychologists needs any 
further confirmation, let us consider that we are 
accustomed to start men on new and trying courses 
of life with solemn ceremonies. Thus we have an 
inaugural ceremony when a civil officer assumes his 
new position, and we cannot doubt that kings and 



198 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

presidents and judges are often aided to bear faith- 
fully their heavy burdens and to live above the 
temptations which plead with them to swerve from 
the highway of honor, at least a little and in secret, 
by calling to mind the oath which they swore in 
the beginning and the assembled multitudes of spec- 
tators who witnessed it. Nor can we doubt that the 
care which we lavish upon the marriage ceremony 
aids the young husband and wife, but partially 
adapted to each other, and but partially fitted for 
their new duties and responsibilities, to have pa- 
tience, and to acquire those habits of yielding and 
unselfishness which the home demands. They look 
back at the marriage service, and picture the faces 
of friends gathered together to hear their vows 
of love and fidelity, and grow ashamed of the 
petty and exacting tempers which might mar their 
peace or destroy it altogether. Our Saviour, who 
c ated the soul and knows it perfectly, did his 
firso miracle to aid in rendering a marriage service 
successful. As he began his ministry by putting 
the supreme seal of his approval on the ceremony of 
baptism, so he began his miracles by putting the 
supreme seal of his approval on the ceremony of 
marriage. He performed this divine act in order 
to approve the married life and the home. But 
let us not pause when we have said this. The most 
obvious feature of the act was the solicitude of 
Christ to bless the ceremony itself and to make it 
complete, so that his young friends, when they 
should remember it in after years, should not 



BAPTISM THE DOOR TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. 199 

associate it with distress and humiliation, but 
should find in it a source of joy and a sweet con- 
straint to all the domestic virtues. We are follow- 
ing Christ when we make the ceremony of mar- 
riage impressive and helpful. Let us imagine a 
society in which it should be reduced to a few 
cold words or should be wholly abolished. Such a 
society would be either angelic, and in no need of 
aid to overcome sin, or else bestial, incapable of 
gentleness, and unrestrained by love or conscience 
from the indulgence of all base passions. 

We are now prepared to understand in some small 
measure the divine utility of holy baptism. In 
saving the soul, God works both directly and indi- 
rectly, both by the immediate contact of the Holy 
Spirit and by mediate external agencies. Hence 
we speak not only of the sovereignty of grace, but 
also of the means of grace. Were the means of 
grace unimportant, we might dispense with preach- 
ing, with the study of the Bible, with the cou ils 
of Christian friends, and with the hallowed asso- 
ciations of the church. Now, baptism, a powerful 
depiction of the burial and resurrection of Christ, 
of the death and resurrection of the soul, and of our 
future blessed resurrection, standing at the very 
beginning of the new life, is a most precious means 
of grace. Its picturesqueness, its mighty appeal to 
the intelligence, to the imagination, to the emo- 
tions, and thus to the will, render it most effectual 
in producing the greatest possible initial impres- 
sion, which, the psychologists tell us, is so necessary 



200 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES BESET. 

at the beginning of a new course. To apply it in 
unconscious infancy, or to alter its form and thus to 
blot out its testimony concerning the great central 
truths of Christianity, is to render it nugatory. 

4. But more than this should be said. Baptism 
is a much-needed aid to the disciple, not merely be- 
cause it is a moving ceremony. It is an act of faith 
on his part, "the interrogation of a good conscience 
toward God." Now, every act of faith leads to a 
gracious manifestation of God to the soul. The 
highest acts of faith — like those of the martyrs, for 
example — often lead to overwhelming manifesta- 
tions of God to the soul, and hence many Chris- 
tians who have "given their bodies to be burned" 
have broken forth into singing in the midst of the 
flames. Among the most decisive acts of faith we 
must reckon this holy ordinance, in which the new 
disciple puts on Christ before an assembled world. 
It is common, therefore, for new disciples to re- 
ceive in it a vast influx of spiritual power. The 
Holy Spirit responds to faith and communicates 
abundance of peace and joy and power, testifying 
of cleansing and pardon, of the gracious smiles of 
the Heavenly Father, and of the inheritance of 
glory, and giving unusual influence to the words 
and deeds with which the soldier of the cross, but 
just enlisted in the service, seeks "to destroy the 
works of the devil." 

So common is this experience that, when I was 
a pastor, I counted upon it as one of my most valu- 
able auxiliaries, and never in vain. In every com- 



BAPTISM THE DOOR TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. 201 

munity there are good, but discouraged, Christian 
people who, humbly conscious of their faults, hesi- 
tate to enter the church as members. All who 
know them hold them to be Christians, though of 
the timid and shrinking class, but they themselves 
stand in doubt, "waiting for the waters to be 
moved," with some emotional assurance that they 
are accepted. I was accustomed to promise these 
excellent and modest children of God that they 
would receive the light for which they longed, if 
they would obey Christ and be baptized; I led many 
of them into the church, and I never knew my pre- 
diction to fail. Their act of faith was met by the 
Holy Spirit with a corresponding act of grace. 

Let no one misrepresent this view by calling it 
sacramentarianism. It is as far from sacramen- 
tarianism as the east is from the west. Sacramen- 
tarianism affirms that the sacraments are channels 
of grace; but I affirm that faith is the sole channel 
of grace. Sacramentarianism affirms that, since 
the sacraments are channels of grace, the reception 
of them is the usual condition upon which grace is 
conferred; but I affirm that faith is the sole condi- 
tion upon which grace ia conferred. After having 
guarded myself in this manner, I may surely in- 
sist, without being misunderstood, that baptism is 
an act of faith, and hence a means of grace, and 
that, as it was appointed for all his followers by 
the Son of God, the Spirit of God honors it by con- 
ferring light and comfort and strength on those 
who receive it in faith. 



202 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

These are some of the effects of baptism in the 
economy of grace. To the Baptists chiefly has been 
granted the honor of restoring this holy ordinance 
to the Christian world. Were it a mere form, it 
would not matter whether it was placed before or 
after the Lord's supper. But it is an agency of 
infinite practical value in launching the new disci- 
ple upon his new way, and its place of utility is 
at the beginning of his discipleship; and, since 
infinite wisdom has assigned it this position, the 
Baptists should keep it there. Nor should they 
recognize as baptism the christening of infants, 
or sprinkling or pouring administered to older per- 
sons — ceremonies containing nothing of the signifi- 
cance and power of the Christian ordinance. But 
unrestricted communion is a recognition of these 
ceremonies as baptism, and a recognition in action, 
which is far more decisive and impressive than any 
words. It would be vain for the Baptists to hope to 
bring baptism back to the place from which these 
ceremonies have thrust it, if they should practise 
unrestricted communion. In spite of all verbal 
protests, they would be understood to recognize in- 
fant christening and sprinkling and pouring as 
valid baptism, and in the end they themselves 
would come to feel that these ceremonies -are in 
some sense valid. This would not be a misfortune 
if baptism were a light thing; but, since the New 
Testament has charged it with the weightiest mean- 
ings and appointed it to the weightiest functions, 
the Baptists have no right to pursue a course 
which would silence its voice and smite its benefi- 
cent power with paralysis. 



BAPTISM THE DOOB TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. 203 

CHAPTER VI. 
Baptism the Door to the Lord's Supper. 

BY FRANKLIN JOHNSON, D. D., LL.D. 

THE ARGUMENT FROM THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LORD'S 
SUPPER. 

Some of those who teach that baptism need not 
precede the Lord's supper do so because they hold 
a view of the Lord's supper quite different from 
that of the New Testament. Thus Professor See- 
ley (in his "Ecce Homo") has told us that our 
Lord instituted a sort of "club dinner," in which 
his friends were asked to remember him. The 
theory requires us to forget much that our Lord 
said at the last supper — as, for example, "This is 
my body," and "This is my blood"; but Professor 
Seeley found no serious difficulty here. Many 
other writers join him in presenting the Lord's 
supper in this secular light. In order to do so, they 
trim away some of our Lord's expressions recorded 
in the Gospels as not genuine — that is, as not con- 
venient — and pronounce some expressions of the 
other books of the New Testament later accretions, 
of no authority for us. Now, if I believed that our 
Lord intended to institute a mere club dinner, I 
should not regard baptism as prerequisite to it. 
The chief prerequisites to a club dinner are those 
social qualities which render a person "clubable," 
and a good appetite. 



204 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES EESET. 

Dr. Norman Fox (in his two booklets, "Christ 
in the Daily Meal" and "The Invitation to the 
Breaking of Bread"; so, also, McGiffert, "The Apos- 
tolic Age," pages 69, 70) is an able representative 
of the view that our Lord, at the last supper, in- 
tended to make all meals commemorative of his 
person and his death, and not to institute a special 
commemorative meal. Dr. Fox infers from this 
premise that baptism cannot be a prerequisite to 
the Lord's supper, for every meal, partaken in a 
proper spirit, is to him the Lord's supper. The 
conclusion may be granted if the premise is proven, 
for it is difficult to think of our Lord as wishing 
to make baptism a prerequisite to every meal. Had 
he done so, it would be necessary to compel every 
convert to fast until baptism could be administered. 
But the premise does not appear to me to rest on 
any solid support. 

It is the purpose of Dr. Fox to bring all meals 
up to the level of the Lord's supper, and not to 
depress the Lord's supper to the ordinary level of 
the present daily meal. But this is impossible. The 
mind is so constituted that it seeks to attend to 
certain definite things at certain definite seasons, 
and we cannot force it to attend to all things at all 
seasons. The holiest mind distinguishes the com- 
mon and the uncommon, the secular and the reli- 
gious, the material and the spiritual, in our duties 
and observances. If a man should try to make 
every day a commemoration of the Declaration of 
Independence, he would end by having no Inde- 



BAPTISM THE DOOR TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. 205 

pendence Day. If a man should try to make every 
day a New Year's Day, he would end by having no 
New Year's Day. It has been proposed to abolish 
the Sabbath by making every day a Sabbath; but 
no one has ever succeeded in carrying the proposi- 
tion into practice, and the effort, were it made, 
would result only in the secularization of the Sab- 
bath, and not in the sanctification of the other days 
of the week. A poet has sung that "every place is 
holy ground"; but we cannot make every place holy 
in the sense in which Galilee and Jerusalem and 
Calvary are holy, except as we cease to think of 
them as holy. Even so, the effort to make all our 
meals suppers of the Lord would leave us without 
any Lord's supper. 

Moreover, the New Testament clearly gives us a 
special meal in the Lord's supper. Our Lord in- 
stituted it, not at a common meal, but at the paschal 
supper, a very uncommon meal. He has suggested 
to us thus the analogy between the paschal supper 
and the Lord's supper, the one pointing forward to 
"the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," 
and the other pointing back to "the Lamb of God 
that taketh away the sin of the world," and both 
meeting in harmony "in the night in which he was 
betrayed." Moreover, the apostle Paul distinguishes 
sharply between the common meal and the Lord's 
supper: "What! have ye not houses to eat and to 
drink in?" "If any man is hungry, let him eat at 
home." 

But many, who do not agree with Professor See- 



206 BAPTIST PBINCIPLES RESET. 

ley or Dr. Norman Fox, deem the Lord's supper of 
relatively slight importance, and regard it as "a 
mere ceremony," "a mere emblem." I think that 
a large share of the sentiment in favor of unre- 
stricted communion springs from the feeling that 
the communion, after all, is not of very great con- 
sequence. Thousands of good Christians have re- 
coiled from the papal doctrine of transubstantiation 
and the awe with which the Roman Catholic be- 
holds the wafer, to the opposite extreme of easy 
apathy in the presence of the holy bread and wine. 
In answer to these three typical views, which 
tend to unrestricted communion, I present the 
Lord's supper, as I have presented baptism, as a 
ceremony, but not "a mere ceremony"; as an em- 
blem, but not "a mere emblem." Between these 
inadequate views and sacramentarianism, which I 
abhor, there is a wide continent of rich truth, 
which we should by no means overlook. I, there- 
fore, present the Lord's supper as containing ele- 
ments of spiritual truth and power similar to those 
which I found in baptism. 1. It preaches the cross: 
"Ye proclaim the Lord's death." 2. It offers to the 
believer a touching memorial of the entire person 
and work of Christ, and especially of his sacrificial 
atonement: "Do this in remembrance of me." "This 
is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for 
many unto the remission of sins." 3. It is a sym- 
bol of God's covenant with his people: "This is my 
blood of the new covenant." 4. It presents Christ 
as the nourishment and life of the soul: "Bat all 



BAPTISM THE DOOR TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. 207 

ye of it"; "Drink all ye of it." 5. It is a prediction 
of the second coming: "Ye proclaim the Lord's 
death till he come." 6. It is a prediction of our 
future glory with Christ: "I will not drink hence- 
forth of this fruit of the vine until that day when 
I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." 
7. It is a symbol of the fraternal unity of those 
who partake of it: "We, who are many, are one 
bread, one body; for we all partake of the one 
bread." This ordinance, therefore, contains a pre- 
cious freightage of Christian truth. 

Moreover, in partaking of the Lord's supper, the 
Christian performs un act of faith and receives a 
refreshing of 1 s faith, a brighter manifestation 
of God to his soul, since God always manifests 
himself to men in proportion to their faith. As I 
said of baptism, so I say of the Lord's supper — 
that, while it is neither a channel of grace nor a 
condition of grace, it is a means of grace. Faith is 
the only channel of grace and the only condition of 
grace; but faith leads to action, and all acts of faith 
are means of grace. Nor do I deem it unreason- 
able to suppose that Christ makes a special and 
abundant manifestation of himself to those who 
partake of his supper in faith. Is it not natural to 
expect that he will honor with a special display of 
his presence the memorial meal which he founded, 
and at which he is the host and his people the 
guests? 

There is a doctrine of "the real presence" which 
the Baptist may hold, because it sets forth his 



208 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

personal experience. The phrase "the real pres- 
ence" has been used to affirm the real presence of 
the flesh and blood cf Christ in the bread and wine. 
But there is no reason for limiting its use in this 
manner. The Baptist, who rejects with loathing 
the doctrine of the physical presence of Christ in 
the supper, knows of his spiritual presence; and 
that, after all, is the only "real presence" for which 
he is concerned. There are two kinds of spiritual 
presence of Christ of which the Scriptures speak. 
First, there is his omnipresence as God, his imma- 
nence in his universe, so that he is in every place, 
even where we forget him and see 1 im not. But, 
again, there is a presence of manifestation. He is 
everywhere; but often, like Jacob, we awake from 
some carnal slumber and say: "Surely Jehovah 
is in this place, and I knew it not." At other 
times he is so manifest that "our hearts burn 
within us." It is for this presence of manifesta- 
tion that we pray when we ask him to be with us. 
It is this that he has promised his assembled peo- 
ple: "Where two or three are gathered together in 
my name, there am I in the midst of them." It is 
of this that the disciple is conscious at the Lord's 
supper: 

44 How sweet and awful is the place 
"With Christ within the doors, 
Where everlasting love displays 
The choicest of her stores." 

The disciple, therefore, need only consult his own 
experience to find an answer to those who plead 



BAPTISM THE DOOR TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. 209 

for unrestricted communion on the ground that the 
Lord's supper is a mere club dinner, a mere daily 
meal, or a mere vague emblem. 

THE ARGUMENT FROM THE NATURAL RELATION OF THE 
TWO ORDINANCES TO ONE ANOTHER. 

Dr. Norman Fox, deeming every daily meal the 
Lord's supper, not unnaturally denies that baptism 
logically precedes it: "Is there in fact any logical 
relation between baptism and the memorial eating? 
The breaking of bread is in order to — an assistance 
towards — a remembrance of Christ. Like kneeling 
in prayer or lifting the voice in praise, it is a physi- 
cal act to assist the spiritual exercise. Now, if it 
be proper for an unbaptized person to remember 
Christ, why should he not break bread to assist 
such remembrance? "Why should lack of baptism 
forbid one's breaking bread in order to remem- 
brance of Christ, any more than it would forbid his 
kneeling in prayer or his playing on a harp to assist 
his soul to praise? Baptism has no logical ante- 
cedence to the breaking of bread, any more than 
to kneeling or singing." If I believed the premise 
which Dr. Fox urges — that Christ intended to insti- 
tute no memorial meal other than the daily meal, 
and that he intended it to do nothing more than to 
bring him to the thoughts of his disciples — I should 
conclude that "baptism has no logical antecedence 
to the breaking of bread, any more tnan to kneeling 
or singing." 

But we have already found in the Lord's supper 

14 



210 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

special characteristics which set it apart from the 
daily meal and elevate it into the class of Christian 
ordinances. Now, things which belong together as 
members of a class are related in thought to the 
other members of the same class as they cannot be 
to objects belonging to other classes. Jupiter is 
related in thought to Mercury as it is not to the 
Sultan of Turkey or to Mount Hood. The Capitol 
at Washington is related in thought to the houses 
of Parliament as it is not to a pine tree or a bottle 
of rose-water. The President of the United States 
is related in thought to the President of France 
as he is not to the Atlantic Ocean or the Alhambra. 
If we should try never so earnestly to follow Dr. 
Norman Fox in his effort to give baptism only 
such a relation to the Lord's supper as that which 
it sustains to preaching, to praying, and to sing- 
ing, we should succeed only as he has succeeded, 
by forgetting the unique character of the ordi- 
nances as ordinances, or else by blinding ourselves 
to a necessary law of classification. We should 
probably not succeed at all. The moment we 
should classify the two as ordinances and as form- 
ing a group by themselves, we should see that bap- 
tism necessarily sustains a relation to the Lord's 
supper which it does not sustain to preaching, pray- 
ing, and singing; and having determined this point, 
we should readily perceive that the logical relation 
of baptism to the Lord's supper is that of prece- 
dence. 
We have found already that the two ordinances 



BAPTISM THE DOOR TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. 211 

have a large body of meaning in common, while 
yet each presents some special phases of truth, and 
also presents the truth common to both in a light 
of its own. In general, baptism sets forth the be- 
ginning of the Christian life, and the Lord's supper 
its sustenance. The key thought of baptism, so far 
as it relates to the recipient, is a burial to sin and 
a resurrection to holiness; the key thought of the 
Lord's supper, so far as it relates to the recipient, 
is the perpetuation of the Christian life by feeding 
on "the Bread of Heaven." As Dr. Alvah Hovey 
well says: "The former speaks of change from one 
spiritual condition to another, from moral pollution 
to moral purity, while the other speaks of growth, 
progress, power, in a present condition. 'For as 
many of you as have been baptized into Christ have 
put on Christ.' 'As often as ye eat this bread and 
drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he 
come.' " 

Hence, in the New Testament, baptism is admin- 
istered to each disciple but once, while the Lord's 
supper is administered many times; for life begins 
but once, while it requires many reinforcements of 
food for its furtherance. 

Hence, also, in the New Testament, baptism is 
linked to faith as the first formal and ceremonial 
expression of it, while the Lord's supper never has 
this position. Thus in the great commission we 
are directed to "make disciples of all the nations, 
baptizing them." Observe here the intimate asso- 
ciation of discipleship with baptism as the confes- 



212 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

sion of discipleship. The practice of the disciples 
was strictly in keeping with this feature of the 
commission, and they always administered baptism 
as the first formal symbolical act of the believer, 
while the Lord's supper followed it. On the day of 
Pentecost, "they that gladly received his word were 
baptized." Afterwards "they continued steadfastly 
in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the 
breaking of bread, and the prayers." The people 
of Samaria, "when they believed Philip preaching 
good tidings, were baptized, both men and women." 
Such was the universal rule, exemplified in the 
case of Cornelius, of Saul of Tarsus, of Lydia and 
her household, of the jailer and his household, of 
Crispus and his household, and of "many of the 
Corinthians" who believed with him; when these 
persons believed, they were baptized. The rule has 
no exceptions. We do not read that any persons 
believed and received the Lord's supper. To quote 
the words of Dr. A. N. Arnold ("The Scriptural 
Terms of Admission to the Lord's Supper") : "In 
no case is it said, 'Then they that gladly received 
the word came together to break bread'; or, 'Who 
can forbid bread and wine, that these should not 
eat the Lord's supper, who have received the Holy 
Ghost as well as we?' or, 'Believing in God with all 
his house, he sat down at the table of the Lord, he 
and all his straightway'; or, 'Repent and receive 
the Lord's supper, every one of you'; or, 'When 
they believed the preaching concerning the kingdom 
of God, they broke bread, both men and women.' 



BAPTISM THE DOOB TO THE LOBD'S SUPPEB. 213 

In no case are they described as receiving the 
Lord's supper immediately after their conversion, 
or as receiving the Lord's supper first and baptism 
afterwards." 

If this precedence of baptism to the Lord's supper 
were a mere accident or an adjustment of practice 
to local and temporary circumstances, it would not 
necessarily be a guide to us. But it is based upon 
a profound reason. It is based upon the signifi- 
cance of baptism as related to the significance of 
the Lord's supper. For us to reverse the divine 
order would be to reverse the meaning of one 
ordinance or of both. We might do it lightly, if we 
regarded baptism as the mere dedication of a babe 
by means of a drop of water, or a mere initiation 
of an older person into the church by the same 
means. We might do it lightly, if we regarded the 
Lord's supper as a mere club dinner, or a mere 
daily meal, or a mere vague religious emblem, with 
no special message for the observers or the partici- 
pants. But so long as we recognize in baptism 
and the Lord's supper that which the Scriptures 
find in them, we shall not willingly change the 
order of precedence which the Scriptures establish. 

It may be said, in answer to these biblical proofs 
of a definite order of precedence, that the eleven 
apostles who were present at the last supper may 
have been unbaptized, since the Gospels contain 
no express record of their baptism. To grant this 
would not disturb my argument. Baptism must 
have been instituted by some unbaptized man or 



214 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

men. It must have had a beginning. The apostles 
were appointed for the express purpose of laying 
the foundations of Christianity, "Jesus Christ him- 
self being the chief corner-stone." If, therefore, it 
could be shown that they were unbaptized, because 
baptism did not yet exist, and that they were the 
divinely commissioned administrators of both bap- 
tism and the Lord's supper, this would render only 
more remarkable the fact that they themselves 
established and maintained the logical and reason- 
able order of the ordinances, and always placed bap- 
tism at the beginning of the new Christian life, 
and the Lord's supper after it, because the one is 
the symbol of the beginning of the new life, and 
the other of its sustenance. 

But it is not probable that they were unbap- 
tized. Two of them, at least, had been disciples 
of John the Baptist, and probably all the rest came 
from his school. He was sent to prepare a people 
for the fuller revelation and the greater demands 
to be made by the Messiah, and when we observe 
the alacrity with which they left all and followed 
the new Teacher, we cannot avoid the inference 
that their souls had been thus prepared. But John 
baptized his disciples, and also pointed them to 
Him who was to come. Christ himself was bap- 
tized by John, "in order to fulfil all righteousness/' 
and it is in the highest degree probable that he 
would instruct them to follow his example, if they 
had not been baptized already. Moreover, he had 
them baptize his own disciples, and this would 



BAPTISM THE DOOR TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. 215 

render it reasonable to suppose that they had been 
baptized. The words of Peter, in which he de- 
scribes the man to be chosen in the place of Judas, 
are quite in ac >rdance with these indications: 
"Of the men, therefore, which have companied 
with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in 
and out among us, beginning from the baptism of 
John, unto the day that he was received up from 
us, of these must one become a witness with us of 
his resurrection." 



216 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES BESET. 

CHAPTER VII. 
Baptism the Door to the Lord's Sapper. 

BY FRANKLIN JOHNSON, D. D., LL.D. 

THE ARGUMENT FROM THE GENERAL UNDERSTANDING 
OF CHRISTIANS. 

With but very few exceptions, all Christians have 
understood the New Testament to teach that bap- 
tism should precede the Lord's supper. In the 
"Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," possibly the 
earliest Christian writing after the apostolic age, 
we read this direction: "Let no one eat of your 
eucharist except those baptized into the name of 
the Lord." Similar to this is the testimony of 
Justin Martyr, who died about 160: "This food is 
called by us the eucharist, of which it is not lawful 
for any one to partake but such as believe the 
things taught by us, and have been baptized." 
Prom those earliest times to the present the limi- 
tation has been maintained by almost all denomina- 
tions. If it is relaxed to-day by a few In the Bap- 
tist and the evangelical Pedobaptist denominations, 
it is still maintained with practical unanimity by 
the Christian world. This is admitted by all, and 
by none more clearly than by Dr. Norman Fox, who 
says: "Pedobaptists will not invite to the table 
one who has been neither immersed, sprinkled, nor 
poured upon; they declare that only baptized per- 



BAPTISM THE DOOR TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. 217 

sons should be admitted. When, therefore, they 
claim that a Baptist church should admit them, 
they demand that Baptists shall recognize them as 
baptized persons." Again: "The Pedobaptists 
stoutly maintain that baptism is an essential pre- 
requisite to the breaking of bread. In a review of 
'Christ in the Daily Meal/ the Evangelist, of New 
York, which is by no means the most unprogressive 
of Presbyterian papers, criticised the book for its 
doctrine that the unbaptized should be invited to 
the church supper. While among Pedobaptists 
there could doubtless be found individual ministers 
who would consent to admit the unbaptized to the 
table, it would certainly be impossible to carry 
through the Presbyterian General Assembly or the 
Congregational National Council or the Methodist 
General Conference a declaration that it is proper 
to invite to the church supper all true believers, 
irrespective of baptism." 

I might establish this well-known fact by a thou- 
sand testimonies from the highest Pedobaptist 
sources, were fu ther evidence necessary. 

Dr. Fox supposes that this unanimity of the 
Christian world grows out of the doctrine of bap- 
tismal regeneration, from the effects of which, ac- 
cording to him, even the Baptists have not freed 
themselves. He urges, therefore, that the Baptists cast 
off this last vestige of a great error, and invite all 
Christians, whether baptized or not. He is some- 
what severe towards those Baptists who would in- 
vite Pedobaptists and yet believe that baptism 



218 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES KESET. 

should precede the communion, and towards those 
Pedobaptists who wish the Baptists to admit that 
they are baptized by inviting them; and he would 
solve the entire difficulty by denying that baptism 
has any logical relation to the Lord's supper, and by 
inviting all the unbaptized as unbaptized. 

I quite agree with him that the only tenable 
ground of unrestricted communion, other than the 
validity of sprinkling and pouring, is the denial 
that baptism has any logical relation to the Lord's 
cupper. But we have seen that the denial itself 
has no ground upon which to stand. 

Moreover, I do not suppose that we should ad- 
vance in the good opinion of our Pedobaptist bre- 
thren, if we should make them clearly understand 
that we invited them as unbaptized. Nor should 
we ourselves be able to rest in the opinion, should 
we adopt it, for the evidences against it are too 
cogent. 

Some of these we have already examined. But 
another, which well deserves to be weighed, is pre- 
cisely this general understanding of the Christian 
world which Dr. Fox sets forth so clearly. It is 
possible for the Christian world to go astray and 
to persist in error for centuries. But this was 
easier when no dissent was permitted. The present 
division of the Christian world into many denomi- 
nations, each interested more or less in the dis- 
covery of truth and the abandonment of mere tradi- 
tion, renders unanimity in a gross rror exceedingly 
improbable. Moreover, all denominations deny that 



BAPTISM THE DOOR TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. 219 

they are influenced by tradition in making baptism 
a prerequisite to the Lord's supper, and affirm that 
they are influenced solely by the teaching of the 
New Testament. I present this unanimous judg- 
ment of the Christian world as an argument worthy 
of respect. 

THE ARGUMENT FROM PROFIT AND LOSS. 

The opponent of these views often tells us that 
they hinder the growth of our denomination. It 
is true that they have cost us the adherence of 
some noble ministers, whom we should have been 
glad and proud to retain. It is true, also, that 
they have kept many from coming to us. We re- 
gret all this, and shall ever continue to love those 
who thus refuse to walk with us. 

But let us suppose that the loss were even far 
more serious than it is. Would that prove our 
position wrong, or justify us in abandoning it? On 
the contrary, it is our duty to accept and teach the 
truth in love, without too much selfish care for 
our own growth. Are we doing good by our teach- 
ing? Are we saving other denominations from 
superstition, from sacramentarianism, from the 
greater abuses of infant baptism, and hence from 
spiritual weakness? These are some of the ques- 
tions that should give us concern. If we can an- 
swer them in the affirmative, we should rejoice and 
press on our way, even if we were reduced to nu- 
merical insignificance by our fidelity to the truth. 

Now, no one can become acquainted with the his- 
tory of the Baptists in England and America with- 



220 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES EESET. 

out recognizing the mighty influence they have 
wielded against infant baptism and in favor of the 
spirituality of the church, of the separation of 
Church and State, and of religious liberty. No one 
can examine the work they are doing to-day on 
the continent of Europe without perceiving that it 
is a most beneficent leaven there, as it is in Eng- 
land and this country. The larger pa: t of the Chris- 
tian world, though profoundly affected by its views, 
is still reluctant to admit their justice, and its 
mission is not yet at an end. What if it were a 
small and despised denomination, with such a re- 
cord of usefulness, and such a field of action? 

But, after all, our maintenance of restricted com- 
munion seems to have ministered to our numerical 
strength, rather than to have diminished it. It ap- 
pears to have brought to us a multitude of adhe- 
rents for every one whom it has repelled. About 
1820, Robert Hall, the famous English Baptist 
preacher and writer, attacked restricted com- 
munion, and attributed the slow growth of the 
English Baptists to it. His influence, combined 
with other causes, led the majority of them to 
abandon it. The result has not been favorable. 
They have pursued a wavering course, and their in- 
crease has been meagre. Their practice of unre- 
stricted communion has led them necessarily to 
low views of baptism. Dr. A. N. Arnold thus 
sketches the effects of the movement from which 
Robert Hall anticipated so much: "The adminis- 
tration of believer's baptism on a week-day evening, 



BAPTISM THE DOOR TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. 221 

to avoid giving offence to the Pedobaptist members 
of the church; the reception, without baptism, of 
persons who have renounced their belief that the 
ceremony performed upon them in infancy was 
valid; the manifest disposition to give up baptism 
as non-essential, where the cause of peace and 
union is supposed to demand this sacrifice; the 
banishment of scriptural teaching on this subject 
from the pulpit, and even from the private conver- 
sation of the minister with his people, as a stipu- 
lated condition of the continuance of the pastoral 
relation; the discipline and exclusion of members 
for the offence of propagating Baptist sentiments; 
the relaxation of til scriptural church discipline; 
and, after all, unpleasant collisions with Pedo- 
baptist churches — these legitimate logical conse- 
quences and certified actual results of mixed com- 
munion are more than enough to stamp it as a 
practice at war with truth, purity, liberty, and 
union." With such a lack of denominational spirit, 
there could not be a rapid denominational growth. 
The influence of the denomination upon other de- 
nominations has been relatively feeble, and the de- 
nomination has shown a constant tendency to melt 
away and dissolve. 

We have only to look at the Baptists of this 
country to perceive the beneficial effects of re- 
stricted communion in creating denominational 
self-respect and vigor, in making us courteously 
aggressive, in building up our numbers, and in 
attracting to all our views the keen attention _of 



222 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

the Christians about us. The Baptist who studies 
this contrast attentively will not ask that his de- 
nomination adopt the practice of unrestricted com- 
munion as a means of growth in numbers. 

A similar conclusion will be reached by those who 
study the Free Baptists, who practise unrestricted 
communion, and yet achieve but little increase. 

THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRISTIAN LOVE. 

There are Pedobaptists who say to the Baptists: 
"I grant that we, like you, require baptism as a 
prerequisite to the Lord's supper. But we have a 
practical advantage over you. As our definition 
of baptism is broader than yours, we are able to 
invite to the supper all who will probably care for 
our invitation, and thus to satisfy the cravings of 
Christian love. You cannot do this. Your logic 
is without fault, but it brings you into an embar- 
rassment which we escape. Moreover, the ma- 
jority of men and women deem us more charitable 
than you, for they care little for the argument 
on either side, and judge mainly by the practice. 
Perhaps they would not understand your argument, 
if it were presented to them; but they understand 
your practice." In a measure this is true. 

There are Baptists who may be tempted to judge 
the question at issue in the same manner. They 
may say: "We grant that your logic is sound. But 
we do not care much for the logic of the head. 
The heart has a logic of its own. Christian love, 
as well as abstract reason, has its rights. Your 
argument seems to us cold, remote from the heart, 



BAPTISM THE DOOR TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. 223 

a sort of mathematical demonstration. But Chris- 
tianity is not one of the exact sciences; it is love. 
We refuse to be moved by your reasons, and we do 
not care even to try to answer them." 

Perhaps there are few Baptist ministers to whom 
this antagonism of reason and love has not sug- 
gested itself at one time or another. It is true that 
our practice is in some sense a cross, and I do not 
envy the man who can carry it jauntily and boast- 
fully. But are Christian reason and Christian love 
ever really opposed to each other? Over against 
this attitude of mind, which in fact is chiefly one 
of Christian sentimentality, rather than Christian 
sentiment, I place my appeal to a reasonable Chris- 
tian love. 

1. The Baptist ought to love his brethren of other 
denominations very warmly. He ought to esteem 
them very highly for their works' sake. He ought 
to manifest his affection for them, and to seek their 
friendship, that they may learn to love him in re- 
turn. Fortunately, there are a thousand ways in 
which he can do this, not only without coming into 
conflict with reason, but according to the most ear- 
nest urgings of reason. He need not leave his 
heart hungry for Christian fellowship with any 
part of the Christian world. 

2. Love to Christ, as well as to his people, should 
be consulted in this matter. Christ has made 
known his will concerning the holy ordinance of 
baptism. The Baptist has been led to know and to 
respect that will. Others have not yet made the 



224 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

discovery of it. The Baptist does not judge them; 
he loves them and judges himself. His love for 
Christ should lead him to a high regard for the will 
of Christ, which he has learned, and should debar 
him from doing anything which might tend to 
make that will ineffectual. Over against a senti- 
mental love for the Christian I place a profound 
and obedient love for the Lord of the Christian. 

3. Is there, then, a conflict between love for 
Christ and a proper love for his people? There 
should be none. Nor should there ever be a con- 
flict between Christian love and Christian duty. 
But there is a short-sighted love, which may be 
brought into conflict with the best and holiest sen- 
timents of the soul and the best and holiest deter- 
minations of the will. Short-sighted love in a 
mother may bring her into violent conflict with the 
dictates of a wise love, of good sense, of duty, and 
may lead to the injury of the child. Short-sighted 
love always works mischief. No love which acts 
at variance with reason is far-sighted or is worthy 
the name by which it calls itself. Now, a prudent 
love for the Christian world will lead the Baptist to 
see what a calamity infant christening is, and how 
great a blessing the restoration of baptism would 
be. In proportion to his wise love for his fellow- 
Christians will be his longing to give them this 
added power; and he will recoil from any course 
which could hinder him from bestowing it upon 
tjiem. How great the blessing would be the Bap- 
tist will see, if lie will pause a^moment to consider 



BAPTISM THE DOOR TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. 225 

the evils of infant christening. These have been 
well presented by Dr. Alvah Hovey, under the 
following heads: 1. Infant christening takes away 
from the Christian ordinance the larger part of its 
meaning by making it no longer a confession of 
faith, but, on one hand, a regenerating rite, or, on 
the other, a mere vague ceremony; and, still 
further, by altering its form from immersion to 
sprinkling or pouring, thus divesting it of its power 
to preach Christ crucified and risen. 2. Infant chris- 
tening ascribes to the ordinance an imaginary virtue, 
keeps alive fh the greatest denominations the fatal 
delusion of baptismal regeneration, and in some 
others a vague conviction that God will be more 
favorable to infants which have been baptized, 
should they die. 3. Infant christening mars the con- 
stitution of the church by introducing unconverted 
persons into it. 4. Infant christening facilitates the 
union of Church and State, with all its terrible re- 
sults. 5. Infant christening divides the followers of 
Christ. The mission to which the Baptist denomi- 
nation is called is high and holy. The happiness 
and the success of the Christian world are bound 
up with it. A prudent love, a far-sighted love, 
should lead the Baptist to firm fidelity to the truth 
committed to him. 

4. Yet further. His love for other denominations 
should not make the Baptist inattentive to the 
claims of love for his own. Was he brought up 
under Baptist influences? Then he owes his spirit- 
ual life to the Baptist denomination, and he should 

15 



226 BAPTIST PBINCIPLES RESET." 

not be ungrateful. "Was lie brought up under Pedo- 
baptist influences? Then he was guided and en- 
lightened by the Baptist denomination, or he would 
not have entered it, and he should not be ungrate- 
ful. Is he one of its ministers? Then he was edu- 
cated largely by the Baptist denomination, and 
was entrusted by it with its dearest interests and 
called to its highest honors, and he should not be 
ungrateful. But it is committed to the practice 
of restricted communion, and the agitator, who 
admits the conclusive cogency of its argument and 
yet rends it asunder on the plea of Christian love, 
has but little of the love which he pleads. 

THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED ON THE BAPTISTS BY THIS 
RESTRICTION. 

The sole purpose of Christ in establishing his 
religion among men was to implant and to nourish 
Christian character. Every constituent element of 
Christianity is of use in the production of Chris- 
tian character, and the loss of any constituent ele- 
ment is a loss to the forces which produce Chris- 
tian character. Our restriction of the Lord's sup- 
per to baptized believers is based on the truth that 
baptism was instituted to render service in the 
production of Christian character, and that, in fact, 
it does render this service, where it is preserved in 
its integrity. But does it render this service to us 
who have received it? That is what the Christian 
world asks of the Baptist, when he teaches the doc- 
trine of Christian baptism. The Baptist must an- 
swer by pointing to its observed effects. "By their 



BAPTISM THE DOOR TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. 227 

fruits ye shall know them." These effects should 
be exhibited in his own character and in his own 
denomination. The Baptist should be able to point 
to his denomination as an object lesson, and to 
prove three things by it: 1. That baptism, where 
it is observed faithfully, tends to produce the most 
complete Christian character known — stronger to 
resist temptation, more thoughtful for others, more 
brave, more courteous, more sympathetic, more 
wisely helpful. 2. That it tends to produce a wide 
variety of admirable Christian characters of the 
types most esteemed and most efficient, and is not 
operative within a single narrow range of qualities. 
It must produce a better type of wifehood, of 
motherhood, of fatherhood, of childhood, of magis- 
trates, of soldiers, of merchants, of teachers, of 
lawyers, of physicians, of employers, and of the 
employed. It must adapt itself to various natural 
dispositions, and produce a meditative piety in 
some, an active piety in others, an emotional piety 
in some, and a merely military and obedient piety 
in others. 3. That, since it tends to produce such 
effects as these, it also tends to produce men and 
women more successful than others in winning the 
world to Christ and in building up the kingdom of 
God in the world. Such is the obligation. It will 
not do for the Baptist to pride himself on the mere 
observance of a prescribed rite, without regard to 
its meaning and power; that is what the Pharisees 
did. The Baptist must be able to show that his 
obedience has done something for his character. 



228 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

And since the Baptists are compelled by their con- 
sciences to preserve Christian baptism to the Chris- 
tian world at the cost of a restriction not in itself 
agreeable, they should give much of their energies 
to the Christian culture of those who come to them 
for guidance. They have not been insensible to 
this obligation. They have paid great attention 
to evangelization, on the one hand, and to educa- 
tion, on the other. They are now organizing their 
young people for the express purpose of cultivating 
them in knowledge and in varied usefulness. But 
"there remaineth very much land to be possessed." 
Do we give a disproportionate emphasis to conver- 
sion, and too little emphasis to growth? Do we 
employ a great variety of means to nurture the 
souls committed to us, so that all kinds of disposi- 
tion and temperament find help from us? Or do 
we have a single mould in which we place all alike, 
misshaping many and repelling many? Do we ask 
reverent souls to come to us, and then shock them 
by irreverence? Do we ask shrinking souls to 
come to us, and then force them into a publicity 
from which their finest instincts recoil? Do we 
ask the imaginative, the esthetic, the poetic, to 
come to us, and then wound them by inexcusable 
crudenesses? We have broad fields of toil out in 
the glare of the sun; have we any shade for the 
weary, the wounded, the sick, the despondent, the 
fearful? Or are we courting the rich, the educated, 
the refined, and forgetting the poor, the ignorant, 
and the crude, among whom the Redeemer passed 






BAPTISM THE DOOR TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. 229 

his earthly life, and for whom our fathers labored 
most earnestly? If in any of these respects we are 
lacking, the remedy is not to be found in the aban- 
donment of baptism as the door of the Lord's house, 
but in such a care of the house as shall render it 
befitting the majestic entrance which the Lord has 
provided and committed to the care of his people. 



230 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES BESET. 

CHAPTER VIII. 
Baptists and Religious Liberty. 

BY BENJAMIN O. TRUE, D. D., PROFESSOR OF CHURCH 
HISTORY IN ROCHESTER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 

The struggle of Baptists for religious liberty is 
a long and a complicated story. The details can- 
not be recounted in a brief article, but there are 
certain features of the conflict which are of funda- 
mental importance. These have found place on 
the continent of Europe, in England, and in 
America, where three phases of a common strug- 
gle have been enacted. 

From the fourth to the sixteenth century, civil 
rulers, generally in alliance with ecclesiastical offi- 
cials, assumed authority to dictate to their subjects 
forms of doctrine, polity, and worship, and to en- 
force uniformity of creeds, rites, and liturgies. The 
civil magistrate and the church official, one or both, 
practically exercised this power from the time of 
Constantine the Great until the historic protests 
of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. These reformers 
appealed from the Pope, from councils, and the 
Roman church, to the Scriptures as the final and 
supreme authority in matters of religious faith 
and practice. But not one of these great men, or 
the movements which they directed, consistently 
recognized the proper separation of Church and 
State, the rightful autonomy of the church, or the 




B. O. TRUE, I>. D., 
Professor of Church History, Rochester Theological Seminary. 



BAPTISTS AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 231 

complete rights of the individual conscience. All 
these leaders strenuously advocated the continued 
union of Church and State. They desired to sup- 
plant the religious influence of the mediaeval em- 
peror and civil rulers by the authority of local 
princes in Germany, of the council a' Zurich, and 
of magistrates at Geneva. Leading types of Protest- 
antism — Lutheran, Zwinglian, Calvinian, and Angli- 
can — agreed in the repudiation of papal authority, 
but all retained a State church, without adequate 
provision for the permanent freedom of the church 
from secular control, or for the sacred and inalien- 
able rights of the individual conscience. 

The supreme authority of the Scriptures was 
declared to be the formal principle of the Protestant 
Reformation, but Protestants disagreed in the am- 
plication of this principle. Some held that custom- 
ary forms of worship, not expressly forbidden by 
the Scriptures, might properly be retained; others 
strenuously held that many practices of the old 
church were superfluous and misleading, and that 
nothing in the constitution or worship of the 
church ought to be inculcated which is not ex- 
plicitly authorized by the Scriptures. 

To those who believed in the final and supreme 
authority of the Scriptures their authoritative in- 
terpretation became "a question of urgency." On 
this subject there were three conceivable positions. 

The organized church might be regarded as the 
proper interpreter of the Scriptures, through its 
councils and higher oflicials, priests, bishops, and 



232 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

theologians, and, by those who held to the papal 
primacy, through the Pope, as the visible head of 
the church. 

The prerogative of interpreting the Scriptures 
might be attributed to the State, through its legis- 
lators and magistrates, or through the expressed will 
of local rulers. The effort was actually made among 
the numerous States of Germany, when the conflict 
between Romanists and Protestants was intense, to 
have the religion of every State determined by its 
civil ruler. It was soon found, however, that the 
prince could decide only what religion should be 
established by law. He could not compel intelligent 
subjects by force or convince them against their 
will. Thus dissenters might easily outnumber the 
cordial adherents of the State church. Moreover, 
the interpretations of Scripture by either civil or 
ecclesiastical officers in different States were vari- 
ant and discordant. Often they were manifestly 
modifications, rather than expositions or applica- 
tions of the Scripture — the mere expression of per- 
sonal preferences or partisan prejudice. 

The natural and inevitable tendency of Protest- 
antism increasingly favored the interpretation of 
the Scriptures by the individual believer. This was 
the right of private interpretation, and it involved 
an obligation commensurate with the privilege. 
It was, indeed, desirable that all believers should 
be intelligent and conscientious, but in the last 
analysis it was felt that every man must have per- 
sonal dealings with the Almighty. Whoever held 



BAPTISTS AND KELIGICUS LIBERTY. 233 

to this right of private judgment could not con- 
sistently permit either civil magistrates or eccle- 
siastical officials to dictate or control his personal 
religious convictions or practices. 

Out of these two principles — the supreme au- 
thority of the Scriptures in matters of religion and 
the right of private judgment — have ?~isen the his- 
toric and repeated protests which have been made 
in continental Europe, England, and America 
against unscriptural creeds, polity, and rites, and 
against the unwarranted assumption of religious 
authority over other men's consciences by either 
priests or civil rulers. 

Scarcely had Luther and Zwingli denied the 
validity of papal indulgences before men in Ger- 
many and Switzerland, and a little later in the Low 
Countries, declared that infant baptism was not 
supported by Scriptures, and that the inability of 
the infant to exercise personal faith rendered such 
an act priestly, or r-t best parental, and therefore 
invalid because it was not the personal and volun- 
tary act of the subject. It therefore had no place 
in the Christian dispensation and was not an indi- 
cation of the personal faith of the child. Zwingli 
was at first disposed to accept this view. Me- 
lancthon was greatly troubled to explain the con- 
sistency of infant baptism with justification by 
faith, the material principle of the Reformation. 
But Zwingli had been called to Zurich by the civic 
council. He had never known a church separate 
from the State. When he realized that the rejec- 



234 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

tion of infant baptism involved the restriction of 
church membership to professed believers and the 
organization of churches without State support, 
he drew back from such consequences, and insisted 
upon the continued practice of infant baptism. He 
soon withdrew all sympathy with antipedobaptists, 
and became one of their most bitter and persistent 
persecutors. Largely through his influence, multi- 
tudes who discarded infant baptism were impris- 
oned and banished. Not less than six antipedo- 
baptists were put to death by the Reformed at 
Zurich. 

Meanwhile, numerous churches of professed be- 
lievers who rejected infant baptism came into ex- 
istence, while refugees of the same faith carried 
their views to remote parts of Europe. Among the 
continental antipedobaptists of his time, no one 
was more notable or more worthy of remembrance 
than Balthasar Hubmaier. He was born at Fried- 
burg, banished from Zurich after painful impris- 
onment, and finally burned at the stake by Roman- 
ists at Vienna, March 10, 1528. In his tractate, 
"Concerning Heretics and Those Who Burn Them," 
written about 1524, Hubmaier made one of the 
most emphatic early protests against the prevalent 
infringement of religious liberty. "A Turk or a 
heretic," he wrote, "is not to be overcome by fire 
or sword, but by patience and instruction. The 
burning of heretics is an apparent confession, but 
an actual denial of Christ." 

The Mennonites of the Low Countries, like the 



BAPTISTS AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 235 

so-called Anabaptists of Germany and Switzerland, 
suffered severely for their repudiation of infant 
baptism. They have been denounced for refusing 
to serve as magistrates, but as a body they were 
pure and peaceable men, and utterly repudiated the 
fanatical lawlessness which prevailed at Munster. 
When we remember that civil magistrates were 
called to execute laws and edicts which banished, 
imprisoned, and even put to death, godly citizens for 
their fidelity to their consciences, it is manifest 
that refusal to se~ve as magistrates did not neces- 
sarily imply opposition to magistracy or civil order. 
Men like Felix Mantz, Balthasar Hubmaier, and 
Menno Simons were not anarchists, but good citi- 
zens, faithful to God and true to their fellow-men. 
They insisted that Christian faith is a personal 
matter; that every man sustains direct personal 
relations to God; and that private judgment is a 
natural and an inalienable right. They denied the 
right of the State through its magistrates, or of 
any organized church by its priests, to intervene 
between the believer and his Lord, and thus assume 
to compel religious opinions or worship. They 
held that true religion cannot be compulsory, but 
must be voluntary, and in this contention they were 
undoubtedly right. 

It is understood that the early English Baptists, 
either in their native country or during their ban- 
ishment to Holland, early in the seventeenth cen- 
tury, were led to adopt the views of the Dutch anti- 
pedobaptists. During the reign of James I., in 1612, 



286 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

Edward Wightman rejected infant baptism, and 
was burned as a heretic. He was the last person 
who suffered capital punishment in England for his 
religious opinions. During that same reign, many 
from London and the north of England fled to Hol- 
land, as exiles, where some boldly advocated reli- 
gious liberty. John Smyth, in his famous confes- 
sion, written a year before Wightman's death, de- 
clares that "the magistrate is not to meddle with 
religion or matters of conscience, nor to compel 
men to this or that form of religion, because Christ 
is the King and Lawgiver of the conscience." 

In 1614, Leonard Busher wrote a noble work, far 
in advance of the prevalent views of his country- 
men, entitled, "Religious Peace; or, A Plea for Lib- 
erty of Conscience." In it he pleads for the rights 
of Jews and Romanists, not only to speak, but to 
write and to print any views of religion for which 
scriptural authority may be claimed. "It is not 
only unmerciful, but unnatural and abominable — 
yea, monstrous — for one Christian to vex and de- 
stroy another for difference and questions of reli- 
gion." 

The confession of the seven Baptist churches 
in London, issued in 1643, is the first com- 
plete and comprehensive statement of religious 
liberty adopted by associated churches. It de- 
clares: "We cannot do anything contrary to our 
understanding and consciences, neither can we for- 
bear the doing of that which our understanding 
and consciences bind us to do." From this time 



BAPTISTS AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 237 

on, in treatises and confessions, English Baptists 
have urged religious liberty and the restriction of 
the magistrate's functions to their legitimate 
sphere. 

It is abundantly manifest that, when Roger Wil- 
liams declared to the Puritans of Massachusetts 
Bay that the civil magistrate had no right to pun- 
ish men for the violation of the first table — that is, 
the first four commandments of the Decalogue — he 
advanced a principle which had been held more 
than a hundred years earlier by Hubmaier and 
had been urged by his own countrymen when 
Williams was a mere youth. Yet to Roger 
Williams, without doubt, belongs the distin- 
guished honor, accorded to him by Judge Story, 
of having established a State in whose "code of 
laws we read, for the first time since Christianity 
ascended the throne of the Caesars, that conscience 
should be free and men should not be punished for 
worshipping God as they were persuaded he re- 
quired." 

Apart from the Quakers in Pennsylvania, no 
other colonial government in America adopted and 
retained such generous provision for civil and reli- 
gious liberty as did Rhode Island, and it should be 
remembered that the early English Quakers were 
historically connected with those same early Eng- 
lish Baptists, who, as we have seen, were power- 
fully influenced by Dutch antipedobaptists. "We 
are compelled," says Barclay, in his "Inner History 
of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth," 



238 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

"to view George Fox as the unconscious exponent 
of the doctrine, practice, and discipline of the an- 
cient and stricter party of the Dutch Mennonites." 

The long and painful struggle for religious lib- 
erty in the Puritan colonies of New England did 
not cease in Connecticut until the new Constitution 
was adopted, in 1818, and religious equality was not 
attained in Massachusetts until 1834. In Virginia, 
the Episcopalian church was disestablished and 
practical religious liberty was secured, largely 
through the determined efforts of the Baptists, soon 
after the American Revolution, after a period of 
prolonged, provoking, end at times cruelly severe 
persecution. It seems strange that the Puritan 
founders of Massachusetts, who sought for them- 
selves an asylum from the persecution which they 
despaired of escaping in the Old World, should 
have failed to recognize that to worship God ac- 
cording to the dictates of conscience is an inherent 
and an inalienable right — a right as valuable to 
others as to themselves. 

It seems strange that men who counted not their 
lives dear in their determined effort to secure their 
own religious freedom should have refused to grant 
to others that which they so highly prized for 
themselves. Their descendants were slow to learn 
the lesson which the fathers failed to understand; 
but we may confidently hope that this fundamental 
principle of Protestantism has at last, in this coun- 
try at least, been well learned. Dr. Lyman Beecher 
says, in his "Autobiography," of the agitation 



BAPTISTS AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 239 

which resulted in the adoption of the new Consti- 
tution in Connecticut in 1818, with its article in 
favor of religious liberty, that he "suffered what no 
tongue can teir for what he afterwards came to 
regard as "the best thing that ever happened to 
the State of Connecticut." 

Thanks to the vigilant foresight of Vir- 
ginia Baptists, the first amendment to the 
Constitution prohibits, we may hope forever, 
any establishment of a national religion in the 
United States. Writing of "the establishment of 
the American principle of the non-interference of 
the State with religion and the equality of all reli- 
gious communions before the law," Dr. Leonard 
Woolsey Bacon, in his "History of American Chris- 
tianity" (page 221), says: "So far as this was a 
work of intelligent conviction and religious faith, 
the chief honor of it must be given to the Baptists. 
Other sects, notably the Presbyterians, had been 
energetic and efficient in demanding their own 
liberties; the Friends and the Baptists agreed in 
demanding liberty of conscience and worship and 
equality before the law for all alike. But the active 
labor in this cause was mainly done by the Bap- 
tists. It is to their consistency and constancy in 
the warfare against the privileges of the powerful 
"Standing Order" of New England, and of the mori- 
bund establishments of the South, that we are 
chiefly indebted for the final triumph in this coun- 
try of that principle of the separation of Church 
from State which is one of the largest contributions 



240 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES BESET. 

of the New World to civilization and to the church 
universal." 

We have seen that the early English Baptists, 
like many who repudiated infant baptism on the 
Continent, were earnest advocates of religious lib- 
erty. There have been repeated acknowledgments 
of this service by writers not themselves Baptists — 
such as Dr. John Stoughton, Professor David Mas- 
son, and Principal A. N. Fairbairn. 

In the Old World, the rapid growth of the demo- 
cratic spirit has greatly modified, though it has not 
altogether removed, the injustice which is always 
involved in the establishment of a religion by the 
State. The logic of Protestantism tends irresisti- 
bly to favor civil and religious liberty, but every 
form of hierarchy demands priestly rule in the 
church and is naturally allied to an oligarchical 
or a monarchical rule in the State. Therefore, it 
is idle to claim that the Roman Catholic church 
has been or can be favorable to real democracy or 
to genuine religious liberty. 

Probably that church is to-day the most com- 
plete organization and can wield the most master- 
ful worldly power of any organized agency on earth. 
Those greatly err who suppose that the loss of tem- 
poral power in Italy restricted the Roman church 
to the performance of strictly spiritual functions. 
Her social, economic, and political influence is still 
manifold and far-reaching. It is almost alike po- 
tent in monarchies and republics, in Protestant 
Germany and Roman Catholic Austria, in the repub- 



BAPTISTS AND KELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 241 

lie of Prance and in portions of the United States. 
This unequalled organization is historically the 
product of imperial sacerdotalism, a combination 
of the methods and polity of the old Roman em- 
pire, the greatest secular power of the ancient 
world, and of sacerdotalism, partly Jewish and 
partly pagan. The child, like each of its parents, 
is the historic and mortal enemy of true historic 
freedom. The votaries of the Roman organization 
boast that their church does not change; that it is 
everywhere and always the same. The two forces 
from which it sprung, imperialism and sacerdotal- 
ism, are foreign to the spirit of the New Testa- 
ment. Like the singularly strong organization 
which they produced, they antagonize the inherent 
rights of men. 

Roman imperialism held that man exists for the 
State, not the State for man. It pitilessly de- 
stroyed the happiness and needlessly sacrificed the 
lives of multitudes in order to extend the limits 
of the empire and increase the glory of the State. 
Sacerdotalism obtrudes a class of functionaries be- 
tween the ordinary man and his Maker. A distinc- 
tive mediatorial priesthood assumes to monopolize 
the application of saving and efiicient grace, and so 
denies every man's fundamental right and duty to 
have direct personal dealings with the Almighty. 

The Roman church magnifies the externals of 
religion, and, by the most cruel persecution and 
inquisitorial torture, it has attempted to enforce 
outward uniformity of doctrine, worship, and 

16 



242 BAPTIST PKINCIPLES EESET. 

polity. Between this system of imperial sacerdotal- 
ism and the demand of the New Testament that 
every man shall sustain direct personal relation to 
a personal God there is wide divergence. Every 
branch of Christendom and every intelligent Chris- 
tian man is called to choose between these oppos- 
ing systems, whose antagonism is radical and 
irreconcilable. Every young man who enters upon 
the work of the Christian ministry must decide 
whether he will be a priest or a preacher; whether 
he will assume to be a distinctive channel of saving 
and efficient grace or will strive to hold forth "the 
word of life" as a teacher sent of God to his fellow- 
men. 




J. B. GAMBRKU,, D. D., 
of Texas. 



OBLIGATION TO TEACH THEIB PBINCIPLES. 248 

CHAPTER IX. 
Obligations of Baptists to Teach Their Pinciples. 

BY BEV. J. B. GAMBBELL, D. D. 

Speaking of a Christian, an able writer says: 
"It is by the truths of the divine word that he is 
to expand and strengthen his intellect; it is these 
which he is to convert into principles, that are to 
form the substratum and basis of his character; 
that are to purify his heart and regulate his con- 
duct." 

These apt and forceful words furnish a good text 
for a discourse on the importance of exegetical 
preaching. It is the design of the Scriptures to 
furnish truths which will, if received, expand the 
intellect, enrich the heart, formulate doctrines, set- 
tle the foundations of life, regulate the conduct, 
and mould the character. Character is the end of 
the process, the ripe fruit of all teaching and all 
grace. It is a powerful proof of the divinity of 
the Bible that, amid the conflicts of the ages, even 
with all the indifferent handling of priests and 
partisans, it has steadily advanced every people 
who have given it a chance to elevate and guide 
them. The Bible is to-day the very core of the 
highest civilization the world knows. It is the 
fountain-head of all that is best in literature, in 
art, in song, in law, in sociology, in human life, 
whether in the palace or the cottage. It holds the 



244 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

same place in civilization given it by Burns in 
that noblest of all the poems in the English tongue, 
"The Cotter's Saturday Night." 

The burden of revelation is Jesus Christ. From 
the fall onward, the pages of the Bible are illumi- 
nated with promises, all pointing to the coming 
of the Restorer of all things. The scheme of resto- 
ration, evolved with more and more clearness 
through the ages, contemplates the elevation of 
man to kinship with God. This elevation was to 
come through the acceptance of truth, which is the 
world's only liberator. But truth was to be ever- 
more connected, not with the intellect only, but 
with the spirit also. God seeketh such to worship 
him as worship in spirit and truth. Not spirit 
alone, not truth alone, but both together, binding 
heart and mind to God. 

A proper study of this divine method of deliver- 
ing the race from the slavery of error into real 
liberty must deeply impress us with the necessity 
of spiritual preaching, as well as of the transcend- 
ant importance of doctrinal preaching. In some 
quarters there has grown up a strong and hindering 
prejudice against the preaching of "dry doctrine." 
The trouble does not lie in the doctrine, but in 
the dry preaching of it. Dry preachers have turned 
the very bread of heaven into stones, and not a 
few have found no better use for the stones after 
they are made than to cast at their theological ad- 
versaries. Much of the doctrinal preaching is not 
only distastefully dry, but distressingly gritty. We 



OBLIGATION TO TEACH THEIB PRINCIPLES. 245 

can scarcely wonder that hungry souls turn away 
from a ministry which preaches predestination 
without pathos, election without grace, baptism 
without its sublime spiritual meaning, communion 
without sensibility, and all duty without beauty. 

A DEPLORABLE REACTION. 

The reaction from what has just been described 
is no better, possibly some degrees worse. There 
be many who discredit doctrine entirely. They have 
gone away into the mists of mere sentimentalism. 
Feeling is everything, teaching nothing. This no- 
tion is at the bottom of modern revivalism of the 
sensational order. It abounds in clap-trap, and 
after a community has been swept by it, by-and-by, 
when the revivalist has gone, nothing substantial 
remains. There is no substratum of truth upon 
which the converts can stand. I do not under- 
value evangelism. The true evangelist is a gift 
from Christ, and two signs go with him — he 
preaches in the Spirit and he preaches God's re- 
vealed truth. By these signs he may be known 
with infallible certainty. The cure for both evils 
named is a return to biblical preaching, both as 
to spirit and substance. And this it behooves Bap- 
tists to do, even more than other people; for Bap- 
tists are nothing without the Bible, and will go to 
nothing, if they have not the unifying and guid- 
ing power of the Spirit among them. They are 
committed unreservedly to the voluntary principle 
in religion. They have no human authority over 



246 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

them. Their only hope of unity is in the spirit 
and the truth. 

Leading up to the main features of the discus- 
sion in hand, as a kind of background for what is 
to follow, I here enter a plea for doctrinal preach- 
ing in the spirit of Christ and the apostles. Per- 
haps it would be well to enter a plea for a return 
to such preaching, for many pulpits have followed 
the drivel of the age a long way from the solid 
teaching of the New Testament. In the first place, 
there needs to be created in many Baptist churches 
a spiritual hospitality for doctrinal teaching. 
There is in not a few churches a truce with sur- 
roundings. Alliances with peoples of defective and 
alien doctrinal views have become a real hindrance 
to honest, thorough-going New Testament teaching 
on doctrines about which there are differences of 
opinion. It has come to pass that some preachers 
are following public opinion, rather than teaching 
and leading it. There is scarcely a sorrier speo» 
tacle in the world than a man, with a commis- 
sion from the King Eternal to herald his everlast- 
ing truth, secretly taking counsel of Mrs. Grundy 
as to what he shall say. It is pre-eminently the 
function of the pulpit to mould and lead thought, 
so that the thoughts of the people shall be God's 
thoughts. Until people think right, they will not 
act right. As Baptist principles are peculiar to 
Baptists, every Baptist church, with all its appoint- 
ments, from preacher to Sunday-school teacher, 
ought to stand, in the community where it holds 



OBLIGATION TO TEACH THEIB PRINCIPLES. 247 

forth the word, for something different from any 
other congregation. When a Baptist church thinks 
of itself as just one of the churches in a community, 
with no mission above others, it has become a very 
weak affair. 

We may invigorate our faith and renew our 
courage by reflecting that divine power has always 
attended the preaching of doctrine, when done in 
the true spirit of preaching. Great revivals have 
accompanied the heroic preaching of the doctrines 
of grace, predestination, election, and that whole 
lofty mountain range of doctrines upon which Je- 
hovah sits enthroned, sovereign in grace as in all 
things else. God honors the preaching that honors 
him. There is entirely too much milk-sop preach- 
ing nowadays, trying to cajole sinners to enter 
upon a truce with their Maker, quit sinning, and 
join the church. The situation does not call for 
a truce, but for a surrender. Let us bring out the 
heavy artillery of heaven, and thunder away at 
this stuck-up age as Whitfield, Edwards, Spurgeon, 
and Paul did, and there will be many slain of the 
Lord raised up to walk in newness of life. 

People, after all, want to hear preaching with 
substance in it. The truth was made for human 
hearts as certainly as bread was made for human 
mouths. A ministry strong and tender, true to the 
Word of God, will never be a slighted ministry. I 
am deeply convinced that there should be a return 
to doctrinal preaching, taking care to keep clear 
of the faults of the professional religious pugilist 



248 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

This is true with respect to doctrine in general; 
it is specially true of doctrines which Baptists are 
peculiarly hound to hold aloft before the world. 

TRUTH A TRUST. 

Truth is a trust. Whoever has it has it, not for 
himself simply, but for the world. Paul regarded 
himself a trustee of the gospel. The whole world 
were beneficiaries of the trust. From his day till 
now there has been a succession in the trusteeship. 
The apostle, with a spiritual thrift and economy 
taught him by the Spirit of God, committed the 
truth to faithful men, with instructions for them, 
in their turn, to do likewise, that the truth might 
never fail among men to the end of time. Baptists 
are peculiarly in the succession of trusteeship. 
When they were few and despised, without papers, 
colleges, or even the common rights of men, they 
felt the solemn obligations of trusteeship. They 
saw, under the gloom of spiritual ignorance sur- 
rounding them, certain great principles taught in 
the Word of God, held them aloft amid the dust 
and smoke of mighty spiritual conflicts, and sealed 
their devotion to mem in martyr fires. These prin- 
ciples spring out of the New Testament, and are 
for the guidance of the race to the highest destiny 
fixed in the mind of God. 

All real progress in the world is along the line 
of these principles. They are intended and are 
suited to' develop the highest type of manhood. 
They greaten the individual by forming his cha- 



OBLIGATION TO TEACH THEIR PRINCIPLES. 249 

racter after that of Jesus Christ, who was the 
world's one complete man, its most perfect gentle- 
man, its truest and best citizen. Great States can 
not be constructed of little people. A little man, 
narrow in his views of human rights and possibili- 
ties, narrow in his sympathies, without noble 
thoughts, can never make a great anything. And 
an aggregation of such people will make a State no 
better than the average of them. Herein lies the 
explanation of the differences between Catholic and 
Protestant countries. Nations have progressed as 
they have given hospitality to the great principles 
for which Baptists stand. That is only another 
way of saying that nations have risen in propor- 
tion as they have become genuinely Christian, and 
they have become Christian as they have accepted 
the teachings of the New Testament. 

RAPID PROGRESS. 

Within the last hundred years the world has 
made more progress than in 1,000 before. The 
century just closing has been pre-eminently a Bap- 
tist century. During this time, the principles for 
which they stand have had something like fair 
play, and have been widely, and in many cases un- 
consciously, accepted. They have, like leaven, 
worked a change in the thought of all the leading 
nations of the earth. They have emancipated the 
minds of men and opened the door of knowledge to 
all mankind. They have put out the martyr fires 
over nearly the whole world. Those who do not 



250 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

yet accept them in full feel the passion of their 
power as they work their way to the seat of power 
everywhere — the conscience of the masses. That 
was a splendid tribute to the power of the masses, 
enlightened and blessed by the Word of God, the 
London Times inadvertently paid when it opposed 
taking President Kruger a prisoner. This expo- 
nent of public opinion and Tory politics said: 
"The Non-conformist conscience of England would 
revolt at the picture of President Kruger a prisoner, 
sitting with the Bible open on his knee." Keeping 
clear of the political aspects of the case, the Times 
is to be congratulated on its clearness of vision. 
That open Bible is properly associated with the 
whole history of human freedom. Before Luther 
or Calvin or Knox, before modern Protestantism 
was born, Baptists stood for the right of a man 
to have a Bible open on his knee, and for the 
further right to read it, and, looking to God for 
guidance, walk in its commandments, as he under- 
stood them. The right to read the Scriptures, the 
right to interpret them, the right to obey them, 
Baptists have always held to be inalienable rights, 
belonging to every human being alike. This doc- 
trine lies at the fountain-head of all modern en- 
lightenment and progress. It correlates with the 
principle of individualism in religion, and this 
principle has its application in many directions. It 
finds expression in the Constitution of the United 
States, which guarantees religious liberty to every 
one. It goes to the very foundations of the vast 



OBLIGATION TO TEACH THEIR PRINCIPLES. 251 

superstructure of proxy religion, and is rapidly 
working the destruction of the whole vicious sys- 
tem. Individualism means that every one must 
read, think, and act for himself. Sponsors are 
passing away, with many other inventions of Rome. 
Infant baptism must and will go down before the 
great principle of individualism taught in the 
New Testament and held by Baptists; for, if it is 
the believer's duty to be baptized, it is not some- 
body's business to have him baptized, nolens volens, 
when he knows nothing. With the destruction 
of infant baptism, the corner-stone of popery dis- 
appears, and the religious life of humanity is rid 
of an enormous incubus. 

INDIVIDUALISM AND THE PRIESTHOOD OF BELIEVERS. 

Individualism correlates with the priesthood of 
all believers. Let it be known that every man may 
for himself, at all times, anywhere, come to a 
throne of grace and find pardon, peace, and life 
eternal, and the whole vast system of priest- 
craft receives its death blow. Freedom to read 
God's Word, freedom to worship God as he feels 
he should, freedom to act for himself in religious 
matters, freedom to go to God for himself for wis- 
dom and all spiritual blessing without the inter- 
vention of a human priest or preacher, complete the 
disenthralment of the man and put him in the 
shining way of all blessings. 

The value of these principles goes further. The 
disappearance of the priest makes way for the 



252 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

preacher, whose business is to open the Scriptures 
to the minds and hearts of men. His work is to 
educate the conscience and move the heart to obey 
the commands of God. The preacher is the 
mightiest human force in the world. He is the 
forerunner of civilization. He is the most effective 
reformer known to men. His power lies in his 
message. The word of God, which is quick and 
powerful, he lays on the hearts of the people. 
When the priest, with all his flummery, retires, the 
preacher has an open field for his great work, 
and the priest has nothing to do, when the doctrine 
of individualism is accepted. 

I will not go into other phases of the subject at 
any great length. The all-sufficiency of the Scrip- 
tures as a guide in religion is a cardinal principle 
with Baptists. This eliminates the authority of 
councils, popes, synods, conferences, bishops, etc. 
It gives no place to history as a supplement to the 
teaching of the Bible. It shuts the world up to 
take the law from the mouth of God. Here we 
stand, and on this principle will settle all ques- 
tions. Baptists are immersionists, not for the 
sake of immersion, but because it is a command. 
They are close communionists, not because they 
do not love other people, but because the Scrip- 
tures fix the place and order of the table. They 
are congregationalists, because the Scriptures fix 
the nature and order of New Testament churches. 

The world wants and sorely needs a centre of 
unity. That centre is the Word of God. The more 



OBLIGATION TO TEACH THEIR PRINCIPLES. 253 

it is preached in its fulness, the quicker will Chris- 
tian union be realized. 

I must not prolong the discussion. Our obliga- 
tions to teach the principles long held by Baptists 
grow out of our obligation to God, and also to 
men. God has put his highest glory among men 
in his word. The first purpose of the gospel is to 
glorify God. The angels first sang "Glory to God 
in the highest." Every principle of the gospel re- 
flects the glory of its author. If we would honor 
God, we must stand for his truth. As trustees of 
his truth, we are under every obligation known to 
the redeemed to see that the truth is faithfully 
preached. 

Our obligations are to men, also. Their highest 
good is wrapped up in the principles of the- gospel. 
The more truth one has, the richer he is. The 
more he walks in the truth, the happier and more 
useful he is. Error is not good enough for any 
one. We bless the world in proportion as we dis- 
seminate sound principles. To fail in this is to de- 
fault in a trust. 

The marvellous progress of Baptist principles 
during the last 100 years ought to inspire us to 
renewed faithfulness in proclaiming them. They 
have been largely accepted by other denominations, 
though they still maintain a separate line of policy, 
but with ever-increasing weakness. Few Metho- 
dists now will defend some of the early teachings 
of Wesley. The conservative Presbyterians repu- 
diate some of Calvin's doctrines. Infant baptism 



254 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

is gradually passing away. The Romish reason for 
it, though strong traces of it are found in Pedo- 
baptist standards, is now generally reprobated. 

The great Baptist principle of religious liberty 
is taking the world, and its correlative, separation 
of Church and State, is following in its wake. In- 
dividualism in religion has made wonderful pro- 
gress even in Catholic countries and in the Catholic 
communion, while it has nearly completed its con- 
quest in some Protestant communions. 

The work, so encouraging to-day, ought to be 
pressed to a finish. We live in tremendous times. 
The truth never had so fair a field for conquest. 
Baptists were never so well equipped to wage an 
aggressive campaign. In the language of another, 
"with malice toward none, with charity for all," 
let us complete the work we are in and fulfil our 
solemn obligations to God and to men. 



part m. 



What Baptist Principles Arc Worth to the World, 

A. E. Dickinson, D. D., Editor of the Religious Herald, Rich- 
mond, Va. 

Why I Became a Baptist, 

Madison C. Peters, D. D., of New York. 

Candid Scholarship, 
W. R. L. Smith, D. D., of Richmond, Va. 

Sunday Observance and Religious Liberty, 

R. H. Pitt, D. D., Editor of the Religions Herald, Rich- 
mond, Va. 

One Hundred Years Ago, 
B. H. Carroll, IX D., of Texas. 




A. E. DICKINSON, D. D. : 
Editor Religious Herald. 



WHAT BAPTIST PRINCIPLES ARE WORTH.. 257 

What Baptist Principles Are Worth to the WorU] 

BY A. E. DICKINSON, D. D., EDITOR OF THE RELIGIOUS 
HERALD, RICHMOND, VA. 

The subject chosen is by no means trivial. It is 
worthy of the candid and prayerful study of all 
Christians of every name and denomination. It is 
as much every other person's duty to ascertain 
what is true about these matters as it is yours and 
mine. 

I shall not put forward unwarranted and ex- 
aggerated claims for the Baptists, nor under- 
estimate what other Christian people have done. 
In speaking of what Baptists have done, and of 
what their principles are worth, I hope not to use 
a word to which any of God's dear children not of 
this fold can rightly take exception. May great 
grace rest upon all who love our Lord Jesus Christ 
in sincerity, here and everywhere, now and ever- 
more! 

In the very beginning, I must frankly confess 
that Baptists have accomplished for the human 
family scarcely a tithe of what they might have 
done and ought to have done. We are summoned 
to the profoundest humiliation in reviewing the 
failures and follies which have almost everywhere 
and always marred the force and beauty of our 
principles. Many a time have these blunders 
brought us into disrepute among great masses of 
good people. You know that the worst enemies to 

17 



258 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

any good cause are those who profess to be its 
champions, and yet, in their teaching and living, 
misrepresent its spirit and aims. 

Whenever the Spirit of Christ departs from a 
Baptist church, whenever such a church turns 
from its God-given mission, it dies — dies surely, 
dies completely, and often dies speedily. The 
hones of such a church soon become as "exceeding 
dry" as were those of which Bzekiel had a vision 
"in the open valley." No amount of excited breath 
expended in Baptist brag and brazen boastings, 
no fierce indictments of other Christian denomina- 
tions, no iron bands of organization — nothing 'can 
keep alive a Baptist church which turns its eyes 
from its high and holy mission and fixes them upon 
low and grovelling aims and purposes. Such a 
church soon wastes away and gives up the ghost, 
and the sooner it does this the better. 

CARICATURING OUR VIEWS. 

Whenever Baptists give their chief and almost 
exclusive attention to emphasizing the points of 
difference between them and others, they place their 
denomination at a frightful disadvantage. Mul- 
titudes, who might be won to our faith but for 
this distorted view, because of it are driven into 
organized and unrelenting opposition to us, and 
they in turn make thousands more our enemies, 
who might as well have been our friends. While 
this unwise advocacy of our views — this caricature 
of them, I might better say — has often damaged 
lis immensely in the eyes of other good people and 



WHAT BAPTIST PRINCIPLES ARE WORTH 259 

the world at la ge, such so-called Baptist cham- 
pions have often not stopped there, but have turned 
their guns upon their own citadel. Not content 
with the ruin inflicted upon their own denomina- 
tion by their unwise methods in attacking others, 
they have too often found additional vent for 
their pugnacious impulses in keeping up a lively 
right at home within their own lines. There is 
nothing such Baptists like so well as hot water — 
the hotter, the better for them. If necessary, to 
make things lively, they will invent new tests of 
Baptist orthodoxy, of which our Baptist fathers 
never so much as dreamed. Anything is to their 
liking, if it serves to foster and foment dissensions 
and distract and destroy feeble churches, which, 
but for some unworthy leadership, might soon be- 
come great and glorious exponents of the true Bap- 
tist faith. 

Had Baptists been as loyal to the command to 
go into all the world and disciple all nations as 
they have been to keeping the ordinances as they 
were delivered, long before this all Christendom 
might have accepted the truth as we hold it, and 
the kingdoms of this world might have been 
brought into loving subjection to Him whose we 
are and whom we serve. 

In other particulars, also, we have often, in an- 
tagonizing unscriptural views and practices, gone 
too far in the opposite direction. If others have 
had too much machinery, often we have had too 
little. Their cast-iron polity, their wheels within 



260 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

wheels, should not have deterred us from having 
all the wheels we really need that are in keeping 
with the necessities laid upon us for doing our 
work and in line with Scripture teaching. In ex- 
alting our New Testament doctrine of church inde- 
pendency, putting the supreme power and authority 
in the local church, where they belong, it is not 
necessary that we let our great resources run to 
waste. That doctrine does not hinder, but rather 
calls for such combination and concentration of 
these little Christian republics as may be for the 
good of each and all. 

If others have sought too exclusively the 
patronage of the more influential classes, have we 
not too often satisfied ourselves with evangelizing 
the neglected masses, while overlooking others, 
whose wealth, learning, and position we might 
have brought into active co-operation with us in 
the defence and diffusion of our denominational 
views? If knowledge is power in other directions, 
is it any less so here? Had we been wiser, we 
might more diligently and generously have fos- 
tered institutions of learning and have led others, 
instead of being led by them, in this and in many 
more great Christian movements. Because of 
these and many more Baptist blunders (which, 
with becoming humility, let us all now confess and 
deplore), Baptist principles have not had a fair 
chance in the world. The victories they have 
gained have been won largely in spite of their 
advocates. 

It is not the fault of the Baptist idea that it has 



WHAT BAPTIST PRINCIPLES ARE WORTH. 261 

not been worth a thousand times more to the 
world. It is not the fault of good seed that they 
fail to produce a good harvest, when they are not 
properly planted and wisely cultivated. A medi- 
cine may he ever so good, but it may fail of pro- 
ducing the desired effects, when diluted or im- 
properly administered. McCormick's best reapers 
fail to gather the waving harvests, if those in 
charge do not know how to use them. Baptist 
principles are not responsible for Baptist follies. 
As we become wiser and learn better how to wield 
this old Jerusalem blade, we shall secure results 
which will fill us with wonder and rejoicing. We 
shall then probaby accomplish as much in a year 
as we now do in a century. 

Even now we see, here and there, how mightily 
the wise use of our resources tells. Often you will 
find one single Baptist accomplishing as much as 
dozens of his brethren, all told, equally gifted in 
many respects with himself. Such an one may 
chance to go into a community where there are no 
Baptists, and where the tide is all against them, 
and "yet, in a year or two, by a wise and loving 
presentation of our views, he will capture almost 
the entire population. Under his leadership, men, 
women, and children, with all they have, in head 
and heart and purse, turn joyfully to the Baptists. 
Indeed, there is nothing under heaven which un- 
prejudiced people take to so readily and hold to 
so firmly as to Baptist principles, when they are 
rightly put before them in the voice and life. The 
chief, if not the only reason, why Baptist princi- 



262 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

pies have not long ago gained a thousand-fold 
stronger hold upon Christendom is to be found in 
Baptist blunders. Not Pedobaptist logic, but Bap- 
tist living, has kept us in the background. 

With these preliminary remarks, I come now to 
consider 

WHAT BAPTIST PRINCIPLES ARE WORTH TO THE WORLD. 

And, first, it may be well to indicate what are 
Baptist principles. Baptists hold to certain views 
and practices which are distinctive and peculiar, 
and are held by no others on earth. They regard 
these as immensely important — worth living for 
and worth dying for. And hence, when it is pro- 
posed in the name of Christian union to merge all 
denominations into one general organization, it 
seems to us but idle talk. Such a union may suit 
those who have nothing in particular to stand for; 
but it does not commend itself to us, who have 
great doctrines which can be maintained only by 
our continued separate existence. None desire 
more than we that all God's people may be really 
and truly one in faith and practice. We pray 
daily for the coming of the time when all who love 
Christ shall be one, even as he and the Father are 
one. But, starting out with the principle that the 
New Testament is our ultimate and only authority 
as to church order and church action, the ques- 
tion of church organization is settled for us for 
all time. The inspired Epistles emphasize the im- 
portance of holding firmly to gospel order, leaving 
nothing to the caprice and ever-changing whims 
of poor, fickle mortals. 



WHAT BAPTIST PRINCIPLES ARE WORTH. 263 

The inspired volume does not contain a line 
which indicates that anything will do for baptism; 
that if you think a thing is right, it is right to you. 
You search the Book of God in vain to find that 
baptism means this, that, or the other thing, or 
nothing, just as one may choose to have it. You 
will find no line there which so much as re- 
motely intimates that this ordinance is for any 
but penitent believers. Nor will you find anything 
there which could give the faintest idea that the 
supper was ever to come before baptism. The 
india-rubber system of our Pedobaptist brethren 
has millions of advocates in this world, but no 
whisper is heard in its behalf in the Book of God. 

That those who can so readily set aside inspired 
command and example should keep up their own 
separate ecclesiastical organizations, is something 
we do not understand. Surely nothing less than 
the demands of conscience, enlightened and guided 
by the Word of God, can justify the continued 
separation of Christian denominations. If it is a 
mere question of church government, for example, 
between two ecclesiastical bodies, neither of which 
tries to find a scriptural basis for its polity, then 
such bodies ought to coalesce, and as soon as possi- 
ble. Unity is desirable — unity of form as well 
as unity of spirit; and hence every denomina- 
tion of Christians is perpetually challenged for 
the reason of its existence. If it has no distinc- 
tive principles, it has no right to live, nor does it 
deserve to live if its principles are comparatively 
valueless. Without a "Thus saith the Lord" for 



264 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

what is peculiar in its teachings, as its Christian 
basis, a religious denomination has no right to 
exist, and the sooner it disbands and unites with 
a denomination which has such authority for its 
existence, the better for all parties. Continued 
separation from other Christian workers, under 
such circumstances, is schismatic, injurious, and 
un-Christian. 

We are not disposed to avoid the issue here 
raised. We will not be disloyal to our convictions 
by asking that the Baptists be relieved from the 
test herein involved. Baptists are not exempt 
from the application of these principles. They 
have no right to maintain a separate existence, 
unless they stand for great New Testament doc- 
trines which are peculiar and distinctive. Ordi- 
narily, we have not been slow to accept this chal- 
lenge. 

THE BAPTIST MONOPOLY. 

There are certain things in Christian doctrine 
and practice of which we have a monopoly. No 
one else is manifesting any special concern about 
these views and practices of ours, except to oppose 
them, and, if possible, to banish them from the 
world. This is the sect now, as it has ever been, 
everywhere spoken against. However our brethren 
of other persuasions may differ among themselves, 
they are solidly one in opposing Baptist principles; 
and hence it is manifest that there is something 
peculiar, as well as provoking, in our position 
and principles. And yet to all charges of creating 
schism and division Baptists may lift their hands 



WHAT BAPTIST PRINCIPLES APE WORTH. 265 

to heaven and cry: "These hands are clean!" We 
simply stand by the old rules— as old as the New 
Testament. If others come in with new rules, upon 
them must rest the responsibiltiy which comes 
with warring sects. From the peace which is 
bought at the expense of truth, may the good Lord 
deliver us! One particle of truth, in God's sight, 
is more precious than all earth's glittering treas- 
ures. Union in the truth is the only union worth 
the name. 

Baptists, from the days of John the Baptist, have 
given the most emphatic testimony to their con- 
ception of the value of their denominational tenets. 
In maintaining them, they have accepted imprison- 
ment, stripes, and death itself. If the noble army 
of Baptist martyrs, who joyfully welcomed all the 
ills that earth could inflict rather than abandon 
their advocacy of Baptist views, were not greatly 
deceived, there is something wrapped up in this 
Baptist idea of priceless value. Roger Williams 
knew what he was doing when he plunged into the 
wilderness, and for days went without bread or 
water (he says, "For fourteen weeks I knew not 
what bed or bread did mean"), in his zeal for soul 
liberty, which was then as peculiar and distinctive 
a Baptist principle as believers' baptism is now. 
But Roger Williams was only one of a great multi- 
tude — we might almost say a multitude which no 
man can number — who proved their appreciation 
of what Baptist principles are worth by enduring 
fierce persecution in their behalf. It might 
quicken the zeal of Baptists for them to recall the 



266 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

sufferings endured by their fathers, to bear in 
mind at what cost this liberty they now enjoy was 
obtained, and how joyfully their fathers paid that 
price in the dungeon and at the whipping-post. 
They counted life itself a thing of no value, when 
called to abandon Baptist principles. The man 
who does not see anything worth living for or 
dying for in Baptist doctrines is a man immensely 
unlike Obadiah Holmes, who, after a term in jail, 
was tied to a public whipping-post, his clothes 
stripped off, and received thirty lashes, "the execu- 
tioner striking with all his might, and spitting 
upon his hands three times, that he might do his 
utmost. His flesh was so torn and cut that for 
weeks afterward he could only rest upon his hands 
and knees, even in his bed." It was his profound 
conviction of the value of Baptist principles which 
cheered and sustained him through it all. He 
calmly accepted the situation, believing that the 
coming ages would prove that his sufferings were 
wisely endured. And so thought the old Virginia 
Baptists, who laid the foundation of our faith in 
this old Commonwealth, as their songs of praise 
to God rang out from many an old jail. 

Adoniram Judson and Luther Rice did not stop 
to count the cost when, far from home and frienas, 
in a heathen land, they gave up their only guaran- 
teed support, as soon as they discovered that Bap- 
tist principles were simply New Testament princi- 
ples, and cast their lot in with the Baptists. They 
did not stop to ask as to the social position or the 
wealth and worldly influence of the Baptists. They 



V7HAT BAPTIST PRINCIPLES ARE WORTH. 26? 

did not once raise such inquiries. As soon as 
they discovered that the Baptists had Scripture 
authority for the points on which they differ from 
others, Judson and Rice were ready, at any and 
every sacrifice, to espouse their cause. What a 
rebuke to all who desert the old Baptist banner 
because their lot happens to be cast in a community 
where it is not popular to be a Baptist, or because 
they happen to be associated with those who would 
be pleased to have them abandon these principles! 

NO ROOM FOR COMPROMISE. 

If nothing is ever settled until it is settled right, 
loyalty to conscience and to the Word of God must 
always rank higher than any mere sentimental de- 
sire for the union of Baptists with other denomi- 
nations. There is no room for compromise left us. 
It is not a mode of baptism that Baptists plead 
for, but the thing itself. No immersion, no bap- 
tism. Nor do we put baptism above other com- 
mands and teachings of Christ. Underlying our 
denominational position on all these questions 
there is one great cardinal, basal principle, the 
bed-rock of Baptist faith and practice. That 
principle is that the sacred Scriptures are the 
only and the absolute authority in religion. We 
object to the phrase "paramount authority/' and 
we are not quite satisfied with the phrase "all- 
sufiicient." The Word of God is the sovereign, 
and this sovereign has no parliament and no prime 
minister. It is a matter of no earthly interest to 
us, as modifying in any way our beliefs, what 
councils, popes, cardinals, bishops, canons or deans, 



268 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

or even district associations, may proclaim. The 
Word of God — what does that teach? is the only- 
question which concerns a true Baptist. 

Along this line Baptists have been working 
through the centuries, and their labors have not 
been in vain. Baptists have been worth something 
to the world. They have stood for soul liberty, for 
converted church membership, for loyalty to Christ 
as the only King in Zion. They have kept the 
ordinances as they were delivered. With them 
there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. No 
one has a right to say two or three; God excludes 
all but his own "one." He has a right to dictate 
as to his own gospel and its ordinances, and we 
have no more right to undertake to change them 
than we have to change the physical laws which 
he has appointed to govern the material universe. 
There would be no more presumption in attempting 
to abolish the law of gravitation than the law of 
baptism. We read: "Teaching them to observe all 
things whatsoever I have commanded you." Again: 
"If there come any unto you and bring not this 
doctrine, receive him not." And yet again: "Though 
we or an angel from heaven preach any other gos- 
pel unto you, let him be accursed." "Behold! to 
obey is better than sacrifice." 

No, friends, it is not that we are bigots — not that 
we are lacking in love for you and in appreciation 
of all the good that is in your heart and life; but 
because we dare not be disloyal to Him who has 
loved us and given himself for us. If he counts 
the immersion of the penitent believer baptism, 



WHAT BAPTIST PRINCIPLES ARE WORTH. 269 

then nothing else in the universe is baptism. If 
he has put baptism before the supper, nc one in 
earth, heaven, or hell, should dare to change that 
order. If he has put the governing power in the 
local church, you have no right to put it anywhere 
else. 

BAPTISM NOT THE CHIEF DOCTRINE. 

After all that has been said about Baptists un- 
duly magnifying baptism, we do not hesitate to 
affirm that baptism is far from being the chief 
doctrine of the Baptists. If the other so-called 
modes of baptism could be shown to have scrip- 
tural authority, we would not hesitate to adopt 
them. The very principle which makes us im- 
merse would, in that case, make us conform to 
scriptural precept and precedent, whatever that 
might be shown to be. The reason for the exist- 
ence of Baptist churches would scarcely be weak- 
ened by so startling and improbable a discovery. 
They might have to change their practice, but 
their controlling principle would remain intact. 
We count as the small dust in the balance any 
question of much water or little water. Whether a 
goblet or a gulf, would make little difference to 
a Baptist, who understands that the ground of 
separation lies much deeper than that. 

There are great differences between Baptists and 
all other denominations apart from the ordinances. 
We differ as to the first principles. They have 
one idea of the constitution of a Christian church, 
and we have quite a different idea. They start out 
with the old Abrahamic idea, and they say the 



270 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

church is for our children as much as for us, their 
parents; the Baptist begins with asserting that 
every human being that is born into the world is 
dead in sin — conceived in sin, born dead — and that 
nothing but the Almighty Spirit of God can infuse 
life into that dead soul, and that until that is 
done it is the supremest folly to think of bringing 
it into the church. Only those who have received 
Jesus, and to whom he has given the privilege of 
becoming sons of God, "who are born, not of blood, 
nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, 
but of God," have, according to our principles, any 
right to the church and its ordinances. Thus, if 
all others were to adopt immersion as baptism, and 
stop there, they and we would be as far apart as 
the poles. 

In holding to immersion in water as essential to 
the act of baptism, the Baptists have saved to the 
world one of the only two great symbolic ordi- 
nances instituted by the Head of the church, and 
the other they have kept just where the New 
Testament placed it. We have also made promi- 
nent the principle of unquestioned obedience to the 
Word of God, placing it not only above, but infi- 
nitely above, all questions of custom or conscience, 
all decisions of ecclesiastical courts and councils; 
so that these latter are not thought of as having 
any authority whatever. 

Baptism symbolizes some of the most precious 
truths of our holy religion. It tells us that we are 
dead and buried and raised to a new life — that our 
sins have been washed away — buried out of sight. 



WHAT BAPTIST PRINCIPLES ARE WORTH. &71 

It points to a blissful resurrection and a glorious 
immortality. It assures us that, having been 
planted in the likeness of his death, we shall also 
partake of the likeness of his resurrection. Bap- 
tism proclaims what no tongue can speak. One 
may in the most eloquent language explain what 
the Lord has done for him, but his words are 
cold and lifeless compared with the pathos and 
power which accompany the silent submission to 
this symbolic ordinance. We have seen vast 
crowds melted to tears as they gazed upon this 
expressive and beautiful picture — God's own pic- 
ture — and we have known men converted by the 
sight, when all else had failed to move them. 

As long as Baptists hold to their baptism, so 
long they will secure to the world this precious 
symbol, rich in soul-saving truth. As long as our 
baptism stands as an expression of obedience to 
Christ (and it grows more absolutely clear every 
day that it is), we exalt the Word of God, and 
everything that exalts God's Word and authority 
is something that the world needs. "The Bible, 
the Bible alone, the religion of the Protestants," 
was the famous dictum of Chillingworth. But it 
is lamentably true that the moet serious and in- 
sidious — serious because insidious — attacks upon 
the Bible have, in recent years, come from 
Protestants. The few Baptists who have shared 
in this unholy crusade have found themselves 
quickly and surely shorn of all influence. The 
great Baptist body has had sufficient spiritual 
health to dispose of them effectually and promptly, 



272 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

without the slow and factitious aid of ecclesiastic 
courts. The principle which expresses itself in our 
baptism and communion and church polity has 
made this possible. This literalism, for which we 
are often mercilessly criticised, has done the world 
good service, and will render far more service in 
the future, unless we misread the signs of the 
times. 

Baptists not only cleave to the act of baptism, 
as given in the sacred Scriptures, but they also 
adhere to the Scripture authority as to the sub- 
jects of the ordinance. We baptize none but such 
as make a personal confession of faith. Here, as 
elsewhere, we maintain not only the supremacy, 
but the absolute sovereignty of the sacred Scrip- 
tures. The failure of others to do this, the aboli- 
tion of the scriptural prerequisite for baptism, has 
as a matter of history led, and does as a matter 
of fact lead, and will as a matter of logic continue 
to lead, in the direction of the union of Church and 
State. 

INFANT REGENERATION. 

Many who practise infant baptism affirm that 
infants are "regenerated, made members of the 
mystical body of Christ, and inheritors of the king- 
dom of heaven." This rite gives Romanists an 
unanswerable argument against Protestants. A 
Roman Catholic catechism asks: "Can Protestants 
prove to Baptists that the baptism of infants is 
good and useful?" "No," replies the same cate- 
chism, "they cannot, because, according to Protest- 
ant principles, such baptism is useless." An emi- 



WHAT BAPTIST PRINCIPLES ARE WORTH. 273 

nent Romanist recently said to a Baptist: "Either 
your people or mine are right. You are at one end 
of the line, we are at the other. Infant baptism, 
if anything, is all we claim for it." 

Infant baptism lays the foundation for national 
hierarchies, and, where universally practised, 
surely and speedily abolishes all distinction be- 
tween the church and the world. For the legiti- 
mate fruits of any such practice we must look 
where that practice has had ample scope for work- 
ing out its results, and not where it is hedged in 
by opposing influences. If you would know what 
are the inherent tendencies of this "part and pillar 
of popery," inquire in the countries where for 
ages it has had uninterrupted and complete sway. 
There you will find great hierarchies crushing out 
the spirit and teachings of the gospel of Christ, 
and, with their imposing ritual and numberless 
and meaningless rites and ceremonies, ruling with 
despotic power over the bodies as well as the souls 
of its subjects, the partner and the patron of Caesar. 

This ghostly delusion of the papacy has in it the 
germ of persecution. The infant is not consulted. 
His baptism is a question of mere physical force, 
rather than of religious faith. If he is the child 
of Pedobaptists, and, upon coming to years of re- 
sponsibility, wishes to be immersed, but desires 
to hold his membership in the church of his pa- 
rents, it cannot be done. The act performed on 
him without his consent has logically, though most 
unjustly, robbed him of the right of choice. It is 



2?4 BAPTIST PEINCIPLES RESET. 

easy to see how the State naturally comes at last 
to take the place of church and parent. 

Infant baptism is the egg out of which all this 
confusion and perversion of God's truth are hatched. 
It removes and abolishes the line of separation 
which God designed should ever stand between 
the church and the world, paves the way for a 
union of Church and State, and of this adulterous 
union a numerous progeny is born — persecution 
lighting its lurid fires through the dark centuries, 
the church hunting rather than comforting, multi- 
plying rather than dividing the sorrows of hu- 
manity, killing when it ought to have been saving. 
And whence came all this? It grew, as all the 
world knows, though all the world may not 
acknowledge it, out of this union of Church and 
State, against which Baptists have always and 
everywhere protested. They stand to-day, as they 
have ever stood, the natural enemies of every prin- 
ciple which would enslave the soul. 

NO MERE ACCIDENT. 

Baptists did not stumble upon religious liberty. 
It is no mere accident that wherever Baptist views 
have prevailed, and to the extent to which they 
have prevailed, men have been left to worship 
God according to the dictates of their own con- 
science, with none to molest or to make them 
afraid. Soul freedom as surely comes with the 
adoption of Baptist principles as day comes with 
the rising sun. It is the inevitable, logical out- 
growth of the doctrine that each must hear for 
himself, repent for himself, believe for himself, 



WHAT BAPTIST PRINCIPLES ARE WORTH. 275 

confess Christ for himself, and be baptized for 
himself — that as we come one by one into the 
world, so we must go to Christ one by one for 
mercy, and at last go one by one out of the world, 
to be judged according to the deeds done in the 
body. The doctrine of regenerated church mem- 
bership, with its basis in the written Word, like 
the light of the sun, goes everywhere, and every- 
where opens the way for the highest civil and reli- 
gious liberty. 

Our form of church government has been of un- 
speakable value to the world. With us the func- 
tion of the local church, our only ecclesiastical 
authority, being exceedingly simple and its au- 
thority very limited, there is room for the develop- 
ment of liberty of thought and speech, while the 
very basis of the organization being in the Scrip- 
ture model, that fact supplies all needful restraint. 
If Baptists have ever failed to be in line with all 
movements looking to human freedom and pro- 
gress, then in every such case they have gone 
counter to their own foundation principles. In 
their own ecclesiastical organization (the local 
church) there is a decided and perpetual protest 
against every form of tyranny in religious matters, 
and in the equality among its membership there 
is a suggestion of that civic freedom which is 
beginning in some measure to be realized. If it 
be the true theory of the republic that "that com- 
munity is governed best which is governed least," 
then it is a truth which finds striking exemplifica- 



276 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES EESET. 

tion in our simple, but effective— and effective be- 
cause simple — church polity. 

In emphasizing what Baptists have done for the 
world, often sufficient attention has not been given 
to this free-and-easy church polity of ours. More 
and more men of strong episcopal church govern- 
ments are looking on with amazement at the organ- 
ized power of these thousands of Baptist churches 
in America. They do not see how we manage to 
combine and concentrate the power of the denomi- 
nation as we do in great philanthropic movements; 
nor can they see how it is that so easily and quietly 
we rid ourselves of the heretics and impostors who 
spring up among us. 

We have only to answer that all this proves 
that the great Head of the church made no mis- 
take in laying down the church polity to which 
the Baptists cling. Some one has said that "it is 
no discredit to a Christian organization that it 
cannot succeed without Christianity." As the Bap- 
tists obtain more of the spirit of Christ and more 
Christian education, as they grow in grace and in 
knowledge, this church polity will work so well 
that all the world will see that it is of God, and, 
abandoning their great ecclesiastical church gov- 
ernments, they will adopt this, which has no ma- 
chinery to drive — no great driving-wheels which 
will keep the concern rolling on when Christian 
love and holy zeal have departed from it. A Bap- 
tist church dies when there is no more consecra- 
tion of heart and life left to it — of course, it dies 
then; there's nothing to keep it going a day longer. 



WHAT BAPTIST PRINCIPLES ARE WORTH. 277 

But these strong aristocratic churches run on centu- 
ries after the Spirit of God has left them. Their 
machinery — wheels within wheels — drives them on 
long after the divine power has left them. 

BAPTIST INFLUENCE ON PEDOBAPTISTS. 

In estimating the value of Baptist principles, we 
must not fail to take into the account their influ- 
ences upon other Christian denominations — how 
they hold back Pedobaptists from the ruinous ex- 
tremes to which they would inevitably go but for 
such restraining power. Nothing hinders the bap- 
tism and church membership of every infant ex- 
cept the Baptists. But for them, every babe would 
as surely come into the church as it comes into the 
world. 

Wherever Baptists are not found, there infant 
baptism goes unchallenged among Protestants and 
Roman Catholics, and is universally practised. You 
have only to turn your eyes to Europe, Mexico, 
and South America to see what sad work it does 
when left to do its worst. Even over the lands 
where Martin Luther's Reformation won its bril- 
liant victories this evil has spread desolation and 
ruin. Baptists are now reforming Luther's work, 
by taking from it the fatal error of birthright 
church membership. Where will you find a spot 
on the map of this earth where Christianity has 
anything more than a name, if on that spot infant 
baptism has not been held in check by the Baptist 
protest? That rite, as our friends call it, carries 
with it a dead formalism, which, as surely as an 
effect follows its cause, works evil, and only evil, 



278 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

and that continually. The reason it does not work 
out such results in this country is to be found 
in the prevalence of opposing influences. Baptists 
here keep Pedobaptist errors from running to seed; 
or, to change the figure, we put down the brakes 
and hold back the Pedobaptist car from the fright- 
ful precipices over which it would plunge, if left 
to itself. 

Every godly Pedobaptist minister is doing far 
greater good because of the Baptist influence upon 
him and upon his people. He and they may not be 
conscious of it — indeed, they may be very un- 
friendly to us — but that does not alter the fact 
that Pedobaptists are a thousand times more useful 
because of the Baptists. And hence, before you can 
tell what Baptist principles are worth to the world, 
you will have to work upon this problem. You 
will have to ascertain what pedobaptism would be 
if its position as to the order of ordinances of 
the gospel were everywhere as fully accepted and 
practised among us as they are in some other 
countries, before you can tell what Baptist princi- 
ples are worth. Close these Baptist churches, 
silence these Baptist pulpits, cast aside all our 
Baptist agencies for spreading our principles, and 
what then? In a few decades you could not find 
in all this broad land an unbaptized infant. They 
would all be in the church, and once there they 
would remain there in the same enclosure with 
their parents, and as truly church members as 
they. With such a universal acceptance of this 
"rite," surely and speedily all distinction between 



WHAT BAPTIST PRINCIPLES ARE WORTH. 279 

the church and world would vanish, and pedobap- 
tism would be left to do for our fair land what it 
has done for every other land w T here it has had 
full and undisputed sway. We say these things 
in no boastful spirit, and certainly with no desire 
to misrepresent our Pedobaptist brethren. This is 
no time for self-admiration among Baptists. Nor 
is it a time — nor can there ever come a time — for 
placing our brethren of opposing creeds at a dis- 
advantage. God knows that I love with a full 
heart Christians who do not wear the Baptist name. 
If feet-washing were now in vogue among us as a 
religious ceremony, I should desire no higher honor 
than to wash the feet of some of the very men who 
most bitterly oppose our views. They may not 
love us, but they love Christ, our Master, and I 
hope and pray that in time they may come to love 
our Baptist principles. Learned theologians of all 
faiths seem to be more favorable to us than 
formerly, and there is among Protestants a con- 
stant approximation to our views. Positions that 
a hundred years ago were distinctly and peculiarly 
Baptist, and for which thousands of our people 
suffered stripes and imprisonment, are now firmly 
held by millions who do not wear the Baptist name. 

LEAVENING THE LUMP. 

Thank God, Baptist leaven is spreading through- 
out the whole lump in this, our "Baptist America/' 
and w T e are mercifully saved from that dead formal- 
ism which otherwise would rest like a nightmare 
upon us. "The Goddess of Liberty" stands upon 
our shores, and with uplifted torch is "enlightening 



280 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

the world." With the blessing of God, Baptist prin- 
ciples will more and more prevail in this, our loved 
land, and they will be preached and adopted in all 
lands. Some day in the coming years — God hasten 
that day! — the sun in his journey will not look 
down upon any section of this globe of ours un- 
blessed by these principles. 

Baptist principles, when rightly held, lead to a 
life of consecration to God's service and to a world- 
wide philanthropy. One cannot take this Baptist 
idea into his heart without taking with it all else 
that is good. He is false to his burial with Christ, 
if there is in him no resurrection to a new life. 
He must feel, as Paul felt, that this world has been 
put upon his shoulders, that he may lift it up to 
God; that every human being has a claim upon his 
best energies; that his commission is to each and 
every being on earth. Nothing less than such a 
consecrated life does the Baptist idea demand, and 
nothing less will it accept. 

And here let me say that, as a matter of fact, 
Baptists have led in agencies for the world's re- 
demption. Were not Carey and Thomas, the pio- 
neers in foreign missions, Baptists? Was not the 
first Foreign Mission Society of modern times 
formed by English Baptists in 1792? Were not 
Adoniram Judson and Luther Rice among the first 
to go from America to the heathen? Were not the 
first Christian churches organized in India and 
Burmah, and China and Siam, Baptist churches? 
And are not more than one-third of all the converts 
from heathenism Baptists? And have not the Bap- 



WHAT BAPTIST PRINCIPLES ARE WORTH. 281 

tists ever been the true and fast friends of educa- 
tion? Have they not sought everywhere to en- 
lighten the masses, reaching down to the lowest 
and up to the highest? Who but Baptists made 
the earliest translations of God's Word into heathen 
tongues? Was not the first Bible Society called 
into being under the leadership of Joseph Hughes, 
a Baptist minister? And does not a Baptist deacon 
share with Robert Raikes the honor of originating 
the Sunday school? In every great movement for 
the evangelization of the world Baptists have held 
no mean place. Nor is this strange. The very 
principles underlying our system bind us to go into 
all the world and preach the gospel to every 
creature. That Baptist would better never have 
been born into the world who refuses to do all in 
his power to save the world, and that Baptist 
church which knows nothing of this sense of re- 
sponsibility to save the perishing nations of earth 
can do for the Baptist name no nobler service than 
to lay that name aside and wear it no more. 

No word of mine can do the subject jus- 
tice. I cannot tell — no man living can tell — what 
Baptist principles are worth to this poor, sin- 
what Baptist principles are worth to this poor, sin- 
ning sorrowing world of ours. The world is bad 
enough as it is, but who can tell how much worse 
it would be but for these principles? Who can tell 
what this uplifting of the word and authority of 
God has been worth to humanity? Who knows 
what a calamity it would have been, had the ordi- 
nances of the gospel been lost to the world, and 



282 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

these two great monumental pillars in the house 
of our God been torn to pieces and forever cast 
aside? Where is there under the blue arch of 
heaven a man who has more than the faintest con- 
ception of what religious liberty is worth to the 
world? Who can tell how much of the good done 
by other Christian denominations comes from the 
influence, direct or indirect, of this Baptist idea 
upon their heads and hearts? 

No, brethren, I beg to be excused. You might as 
well ask me to tell you what the shining sun in 
mid-heavens is worth. It cannot be done; life is 
too short to tell it all. A greater calamity than 
the overthrow of Baptist principles one can scarcely 
conceive. If any are seeking to bring this to pass, 
they know not what they do. To succeed would 
be to wreck and forever overthrow the beautiful 
and symmetrical system as given by Christ and his 
apostles, and snatch from a perishing world its 
brightest — I might almost say its only — hope. 

BEST OF ALL, GOD IS WITH US. 

But, brethren, you need not fear any such catas- 
trophe. The God of providence is our God. He 
has often turned the bitterest enemies of the Bap- 
tists into their most helpful friends. Many of the 
greatest names in Baptist history are names that 
have come to us from other denominations. How 
often, in searching for arguments against us, have 
men and women found that the Baptists have a 
"Thus saith the Lord, and gone forth frankly con- 



WHAT BAPTIST PRINCIPLES ARE WORTH. 288 

fessing that our position must stand while the in- 
spired record stands. 

If Baptists could have been overthrown, it would 
have been done long ago. Almost every weapon 
has been tried against them, and with what result? 
Since our Lord bade us go into all the world and 
disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name 
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, there has 
never dawned a day when the prospect for the 
Baptists was brighter than it is this day, and the 
morrow will be for them brighter still. These 
principles of ours are yet to be laurel-crowned. 
To use the words of a celebrated Baptist martyr: 
"Divine truth is immortal. It may be scourged, 
crucified, and for a season entombed, but on the 
third day it will rise again victorious, and rule 
triumphant forever." That Baptist martyr did not 
overstate the great fact; for back of these Baptist 
principles is the Almighty throne, and it is pledged 
to their complete triumph. If there were but one 
Baptist on the earth, he might throw his banner 
to the breeze with a full and unquestioning faith 
that it will surely and completely win in the great 
coming struggle. 

"Every plant which my Heavely Father hath 
not planted shall be rooted up." Multitudes in 
other denominations believe as we do, and the num- 
ber of such increases daily. Their preachers may 
preach some other baptism, but more and more 
their people are practising ours, and daily they 
are seeing more clearly that infant baptism is with- 
out divine authority. 



284 baptist pbincifi.es beset. 

Let us gird ourselves for the conflict. To-day 
one of the chief points of attack is the integrity 
of the inspired Word. The enemies of Christianity 
are gathering at this point as never before, and the 
very atmosphere around us seems to be laden with 
skepticism. The mission of the Baptists is hardly 
yet begun. Theirs is the post of honor in the con- 
flict for God's Word. Clad in God's armor, they 
must more than ever stand in serried phalanx 
where the fight is hottest. It is a most comforting 
paradox that as we defend the Bible it furnishes us 
with weapons, defensive and offensive. 

THE BRIGHTEB DAYS. 

If God has wrought so mightily through the Bap- 
tists in the past, with all their lack of faith, and 
zeal, and tact, and toil, what may we not hope for 
in the better days that are ahead of us, when we 
shall realize as never before the weighty responsi- 
bilities which press upon us — in the coming days, 
when we shall see that having more truth than 
others devolves upon us the solemn obligation to" 
live a more holy, a more consecrated life? We are 
Christ's witnesses, and his only witnesses, for the 
great distinctive principles he has committed to us. 
Shall he look in vain to us to witness aright for 
him? 

There can be but one issue of the struggle, un- 
equal as it is, with all the mighty forces arrayed 
against us. He who is for us is mightier than they 
who are against us. "As we have received Christ 
Jesus the Lord, so let us walk in him." Let us 



WHAT BAPTIST PRINCIPLES ARE WORTH. 285 

teach these Baptist principles to all the people, 
and in doing that let us not forget our own chil- 
dren. And let us cultivate fraternal relations with 
other Christian denominations. Let us give them 
full credit for all the good they are doing, and re- 
joice with them in it all. Often their holy zeal and 
Christian endurance will put us to the blush, and 
cause impartial observers to say that, while Bap- 
tists have the doctrine, others have the practice. 
Let us seek % to profit by all this, and then, at last, 
when the crowning day shall come, it will appear 
to all that not only have Baptist principles been 
valuable to the world, but invaluable. 



286 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

Why I Became a Baptist. 

BY MADISON C. PETERS, D. D., OF NEW YORK. 

[In the year 1900, Dr. Madison C. Peters, of New 
York, one of the most popular and prominent Pedo- 
baptist preachers in that great city, resigned his 
flourishing pastorate and announced his purpose to 
unite with the Baptists. This he promptly did, and 
was duly baptized by Dr. R. S. MacArthur. Shortly 
afterwards, a representative of the Religious Herald 
sought him out and secured from him the follow- 
ing interview, which was printed in the Herald of 
June 7, 1900. As setting forth the views and opin- 
ions of a trained Pedobaptist preacher on whom 
the light has broken, the paper is of unique and 
remarkable value. — R. H. Pitt.] 

Question: How long were you in the Presby- 
terian and Reformed ministry? 

Answer: I entered the ministry of the Reformed 
church in Indiana when twenty years of age, 
preaching in both the English and German lan- 
guages. After two years, I concluded that I could 
be more useful if I gave myself to preaching to an 
entirely English congregation. I determined, there- 
fore, to leave a church of over 1,000 members, and 
entered the Presbyterian ministry at Terre Haute, 
Ind., starting a new enterprise in an abandoned 
Methodist church. I may say that goiijg from the 
Reformed to the Presbyterian church can hardly 
be called a denominational change, as in all mat- 




MADISON C. PETER S, D. D., 
Pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church, Baltimore, Md. 



. WHY I BECAME A BAPTIST. 287 

ters of faith and practice they are essentially one, 
and ministers transfer from one to the other as 
though they were one and the same. In about six 
months we had perfected an organization, known as 
the Greenwood Presbyterian church, now known as 
the Washington Avenue Presbyterian church. I 
came to this church as a "supply," and when the 
organization was complete and the church ready to 
call a minister, feeling that I might be more useful 
somewhere else, Rev. Thomas Parry, now of Pitts- 
burg, called my attention to the Presbyterian 
church at Ottawa, 111., a church which had been 
closed for several years, and which had long been 
considered a forlorn hope. The very desperateness 
of the condition attracted me. There were just 
twenty-seven people left in the membership, and 
these seemed only too glad to give me a chance. I 
shall never forget the look on Mr. S. S. Scott's 
face, the elder of the church, and one of the lead- 
ing merchants of the city. My enthusiasm seemed 
to take his breath away. I began to preach, after 
the steps of the church, which had rotted away, 
were repaired. The city had a population of about 
10,000. I at once began a systematic canvass of the 
town, and before long I had shaken hands with 
nearly all the men and women in the town, and was 
on good terms with the babies. The audiences be- 
gan to gather, and during the fifteen months of my 
ministry 143 joined the church. One of my printed 
sermons fell into the hands of an old minister in 
Philadelphia, who handed it to one of the elders of 



288 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

the old First Northern Liberties Presbyterian 
church, Philadelphia. An invitation to preach fol- 
lowed. A call was extended. This old down-town 
church had long been given up as a forlorn hope. 
Hotels, boarding-houses, schools, and colleges 
abounded in the neighborhood. I studied by day 
and visited by night. The crowds began to gather, 
and before long I was compelled to preach to over- 
flowing meetings in the basement. Five hundred 
joined the church in five years. At twenty-nine, I 
received a call to the Bloomingdale Reformed 
church, Broadway and Sixty-eighth street, New 
York. This church had been in the slough of des- 
pond. A congregational meeting was called to elect 
a minister. Eleven gathered, and I am pleased to 
say that I received all the eleven votes. Inherited 
wealth enabled a small congregation to build one 
of the handsomest church edifices in this city, with 
a fifty-feet-front parsonage adjoining on Broadway. 

Question : What was the character of the congre- 
gation you gathered in New York? 

Answer: The Reformed church in New York 
has a small constituency. She has enormous 
wealth in what is known as the Collegiate church. 
I found, after a thorough canvass of my section of 
the city, that there were not more than two or 
three families who were Dutch Reformed, either 
by birth or education. To build up a church along 
denominational lines was, therefore, out of the 
question. Beginning with sixty-four members, com- 
posed of various denominations, a congregation of 



WHY I BECAME A BAPTIST. 289 

less than 100, and a Sunday school of twenty-one, I 
had at the time of my resignation a communicant 
membership of 600, a Sunday school of 650, and a 
congregation crowding our large auditorium. For 
no one thing am I more grateful than that I was 
permitted to bring God's truth to juch various 
minds and souls as constantly gathered to hear me. 
My membership was composed of eleven different 
denominations of Protestants, while scores of Jews 
and Catholics were in constan attendance upon my 
ministry. 

Question: What led you to become interested in 
the matter of "infant baptism"? 

Answer: The superstitious regard wit 1 * which 
Pedobaptists hold infant baptism was always repul- 
sive to me. That repulsiveness grew until I became 
filled with insufferable disgust. In eleven years in 
New York, I never preached on baptism, and prac- 
tised infant baptism in public on n 9 only. I never 
did — and I know very few Presbyterian ministers 
who do — use the prescribed form, which declares 
that baptism is not only a "sign," but a "seal of 
ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remis- 
sion of sins." The Reformed church declares that 
the christened baby is "sanctified in Christ." 

Question : What is the basis of the remark some- 
times made that there are many ministers, not 
Baptists, who do not believe in infant baptism? 

Answer: For fully three months before I be- 
came a Baptist I talked with scores of my brethren 
on infant baptism, and nearly all of them declared 

19 



290 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES BESET. 

that they looked upon it as a dedication, a conse- 
cration of both the child and the parents. I be- 
lieve that the majority c*£ baby-sprinklers do not 
in their hearts consider it baptism; very few, ex- 
cept the Episcopalians, use the prescribed form. 

Question: Is infant baptism lessening its hold 
on the minds of persons not connected with Baptist 
churches? 

Answer: Infant baptism is undoubtedly dying 
out among intelligent Christians. It is now 
practised almost exclusively by the ignorant and 
superstitious. I have had women to drag their 
weary frames to my house hundreds of times, with 
babes from ten to fourteen days old, "to get them 
christened, ,, for "fear they wouldn't have amy luck." 
It may not be known that "baby-christening" is a 
source of revenue. Many German preachers derive 
a large part of their income from "infant baptism." 
It may be that Pedobaptist preachers fight so hard 
against "infant baptism" dying out because "it 
pays." 

Question: Did you have any experiences in con- 
nection with infant baptism which produced a crisis 
in your attitude towards it? 

Answer: About two years ago, one of my Epis- 
copalian parishioners asked me to "baptize" her 
baby, and requested that I use the Episcopal ser- 
vice. When I got to that part in the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer which reads, "Seeing now, dearly be- 
loved brethren, that this child is regenerate and 
gf afted into the body of Christ's church," I began to 



WHY I BECAME A BAPTIST. 291 

sweat. I stood condemned a hypocrite and liar. I 
knew different; every sensible man does. I was 
handed a splendid fee for the performance of the 
"rite," as is the custom. I went home feeling that 
the whole thing was a farce, a fraud perpetrated on 
an innocent babe. Infant baptism got its death, 
knell with me on that day. 

Question: Why did it take so long for you to 
reach your present convictions? 

Answer: There is a difference between a man 
having a conviction and the conviction having the 
man. 

Question: What does it cost a man in his feel- 
ings and prospects and ideals to make such a 
change ? 

Answer: I can assure you it is not a comfort- 
able position to take, in which you not only confess 
to thousands, who have for eleven years believed all 
you told them about divine things, that you have 
been wrong all your life, and also pronounce 
thereby an unwilling judgment upon others, who re- 
main where you have been. I had a happy pas- 
torate — a people whose kindly counsel and generous 
support made my work among them delightful. It 
was a position of power and influence, and, taken 
all in all, one which ought to have filled the cup of 
any man's ambition. I had a life position, a pala- 
tial home, a good salary, and perquisites galore. 
For months I passed sleepless nights, debating 
whether I should stand by people who for eleven 
years had stood by me, and go on smothering my 



292 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

convictions, or be an honest man and preach, what I 
could practise and practise what I could preach, 
and, though the saddest day of my life, it was the 
happiest, when I made answer of "a good con- 
science toward God," resigned my church, and went 
down into the baptismal waters and was baptized 
in Christ's appointed way. And now at forty, I 
start life over again, ready to begin once more at 
the bottom. 

Question: What were the Scripture reasons for 
rejecting "infant baptism"? 

Answer: I am glad you say "Scripture reasons" 
for "rejecting," as there are none for practising 
"infant baptism." Our Lord baptized disciples. He 
blessed babies. The Lord's great commission en- 
joins baptism only on those who believe. Peter 
baptized those who "gladly received his word." 
The Samaritans were baptized "when they be- 
lieved." It was when the Ethiopian could say that 
he "believed in Christ with all his heart" that he 
was baptized. Not until Paul had been "filled with 
the Holy Ghost" was he baptized. It was not until 
they were "taught" and "believed" and "received 
the Holy Ghost" that Cornelius and his friends 
were baptized. It was when Crispus and his house 
"believed in the Lord" that they were baptized. 
Paul tells us that those only are fit subjects for bap- 
tism who are ready to bury the old sinful life and 
lead a new and holy life. Peter tells us that bap- 
tism is "the answer of a good conscience towards 
God." On all occasions in the New Testament the 



WHY I BECAME A BAPTIST. 293 

apostles required repentance before baptism. There 
is not a single instance in the New Testament but 
baptism was a matter of choice by those who were 
baptized. 

Question: How do you get around the house- 
holds mentioned in Scripture as having been bap- 
tized? 

Answer: 1. That of the Philippian jailer; but to 
his household the word was first spoken, and all of 
them, we are told, w T ere believing in God. 2. That 
of Stephanus, of whose household it is said that 
they "addicted themselves to the ministry of the 
saints/' 3. That of Lydia. Totprove infant baptism 
by Lydia and her household, you must prove three 
things: (1) That Lydia had a husband; (2) that 
she had children; (3) that the children w T ere babies. 
It would seem from the story that Lydia was a sin- 
gle woman at the head of a household, and her 
household were her servants, who helped her in the 
dyeing business. I rejected infant baptism because 
it was unscriptural, because it implies a libel on 
God — it implies that baptism is a saving ordinance, 
and most people who have their babies baptized, if 
they do not believe in the horrible doctrine of in- 
fant damnation, yet secretly fear that without "bap- 
tism" their darling babe might be lost. "Infant 
baptism" nourishes the idea in people that some- 
thing has been performed towards their salvation, 
and that somehow they will be saved because they 
are within the church. 



294 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES EESET. 

Candid Scholarship. 

BY W. R. L. SMITH, D. D., RICHMOND, VA. 

It is safe to say that Hastings' "Dictionary of the 
Bible" and "The International Critical Commentary 
on the Holy Scriptures," when completed, are likely 
to contain the finest body of biblical learning in 
the English-speaking world. While these works 
are not radical, they do candidly accept many of 
the decisions of recent critical research. Their 
spirit is perfectly loyal and reverent, while their 
method is constructive, and not destructive. Of 
course, they must be read with care and caution. 
Having on our shelves two instalments of the first 
work and five of the latter, we have naturally 
sought to discover their quality of scholarly fair- 
ness by examination of their treatment of New 
Testament baptism. The inspection has been of 
the most gratifying and assuring character. Con- 
troversial evasions, shifts, and dodges are abjured 
as irreverent and contemptible in its eyes. The 
calm, dispassionate, impartial spirit of scientific 
inquiry has at last seemed to enter victoriously 
into the realm of biblical study. 

It will be useful and interesting to set in order, 
briefly, their learned testimonies on the subject of 
baptism. 

HASTINGS. 

"The simple verb 'baptein' in the Old and New 




W. R. I,. SMITH, D. D., 
Pastor of Second Baptist Church, Richmond, Va. 



CANDID SCHOLARSHIP. 295 

Testaments is frequent in the sense of 'dip* or 
'immerse/ " 

"The verb is sometimes followed by a preposition, 
indicating either the element into which or in 
which the immersion takes place." 

Speaking of proselyte baptism, it is said: "His 
sponsors took him to a pool, in which he stood up 
to his neck in water; and he plunged beneath the 
water, taking care to be entirely submerged." 

Again: "Scripture tells us that repentance and 
faith are requisite for baptism." "Not only is 
there no mention of the baptism of infants, but 
there is no text from which such baptism can be 
securely inferred." Yet, strange to say, right in 
the face of these brave admissions, the writer goes 
on to make the usual impotent pleas for infant 
baptism — such as the silence of Scripture, house- 
hold baptisms, the naturalness of it, &c. But it is 
the witness of his scholarship in the revealed word 
that concerns us, and not his confessedly unwar- 
ranted conjectures. 

Coming to the great Commentary, let us take 

GOULD ON MARK. 

Mark i. 4. — The baptism of repentance: "This 
rite of immersion in water signified the complete 
inward purification of the subject." 

PLUMMER ON LUKE. 

"Baptizo is intensive from bapto. Bapto, 'I dip'; 
baptizo, 'I immerse/ " "It is only when baptism 



296 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

is administered by immersion that its full signifi- 
cance is seen." 

SANDAY ON ROMANS. 

"Baptism expresses symbolically a series of acts 
corresponding to the redeeming acts of Christ. 
Immersion — Death. 
Submersion — Burial. 
Emergence — Resurrection." 

Commenting on Romans vi. 4, he says: "When 
we descended into the baptismal water, that meant 
that we died with Christ — to sin. When the water 
closed over our heads, that meant that we lay 
buried with him, in proof that our death to sin, 
like his death, was real." 

Thus these men, learned, reverent, and conscien- 
tious, speak of our Lord's sacred institution. They 
are all Pedobaptists, and yet not one of them seems 
to have heard that any man ever tried to fix "affu- 
sion" or "sprinkling" as a definition of bapto, or 
baptizo. The candor of these scholars on this long 
belabored and stubbornly contested doctrine has 
given us a delightfully comfortable confidence in 
their intellectual honesty. This is a great point 
gained, and alas for the teacher or writer who fails 
to inspire it! 

beyschlag's testimony. 

This profound and illustrious German theologian 
has the following in his recent book on New Testa- 
ment Theology: "It is the symbolism of baptism, 
of immersion and burial in the water, that causes 



CANDID SCHOLARSHIP. 297 

Paul, in Rom. vi. and Col. ii., to connect the being 
dead with Christ with baptism rather than with 
faith." "There is no mention in his (Paul's) writ- 
ings, or in any part of the New Testament, of a 
baptism of children. ,, "All that has been read into 
the Acts of the Apostles about the baptism of chil- 
dren is pure fancy." 

Here is the unequivocal, unqualified statement 
of another great Pedobaptist scholar. It is a good 
sign. There has never been a time when biblical 
learning was nearly so masterful or so fearlessly 
honest as it is to-day. Its massive intelligence im- 
patiently overwhelms the tiresome and outworn 
discussions of "pouring" and "sprinkling." Real 
learning knows nothing, absolutely nothing, of 
either in the New Testament. And yet a great and 
reputable body of American Christians solemnly 
stated, not long ago, to an intelligent world, that 
immersion is not Christian baptism! It was a 
courageous thing to do, but it does not enhance 
respect for the intellectual powers of the human 
race. It is a terrible thing to have the Bible 
against you. 



298 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

Sunday Observance and Religious Liberty. 

BY R. H. PITT, D. D., EDITOR OF THE RELIGIOUS HERALD, 
RICHMOND VA. 

[The following paper, omitting certain local and 
occasional matter, which has been for obvious rea- 
sons edited out, was prepared by me, at the request 
of Drs. J. B. Hawthorne, Thomas S. Dunaway, and 
J. B. Hutson, and Rev. M. Ashby Jones, who served 
with me on a committee of the Baptist Ministers' 
Conference of Richmond and Vicinity, and later was 
adopted unanimously by the Conference. It is printed 
here out of deference to the, perhaps, too partial 
judgment of my brethren, who deem it worthy of 
permanent preservation. If it has any merit, it is 
in the fact that it discusses briefly, and, I venture 
to hope, with some discrimination, the application 
of the doctrine of religious liberty to a very practi- 
cal question. We have much valuable literature 
telling of the struggle for the establishment of this 
doctrine, but scarcely any showing its application 
to the practical questions which are continually 
arising.— R. H. Pitt] 

We feel constrained to put on record our cordial 
and steadfast belief that the State has no right to 
legislate concerning Sunday as a holy or religious 
day, and that, when the civil arm is invoked for the 
protection of that day, it must not be on the ground 
that the day is a Christian institution, but on the 
ground that certain physical and economic laws, 




R. H. PITT, D. D., 
Editor Religious Herald. 



SUNDAY OBSERVANCE AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 299 

which have been disclosed and verified by the expe- 
rience of mankind, render cessation from ordinary 
labor necessary one day in seven, and it falls in 
with the convenience of the public, for obvious rea- 
sons, to fix the first day in the week as that period. 
If the State is to protect the day as a religious day, 
as an institution of the Christian religion, then 
why limit legislation to the mere matter of cessa- 
tion from ordinary labor? As a Christian institu- 
tion, the duties of worship and of active Chris- 
tian work are not less obligatory on that day than 
the duty of rest. Indeed, it may be safely main- 
tained that, in passing from the old Sabbath to the 
new Lord's-day, the emphasis was changed. Rest 
was the main idea of the seventh, worship and 
Christian work are the chief features of the first 
day. It would be singular, indeed, to appeal for 
protective legislation for the day as a Christian in- 
stitution, and yet neglect in such legislation the 
chief Christian features of the day — to enforce the 
Jewish idea of rest and ignore the Christian ideas 
of religious work and worship! And this, too, 
while the«ground on which such legislation is urged 
is that the day is a Christian institution, and ours 
is a Christian nation. 

The emphasis which has been laid upon this 
statement, that "we are a Christian nation," and 
the insistent assertion that we have therefore the 
right to enact general Christian legislation, to dis- 
criminate in favor of the Christian religion as 
against any other, though not to discriminate in 



300 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

favor of any special sect of Christians, seems to 
make it necessary to travel over somewhat familiar 
ground and to restate some fundamental principles. 

We are a Christian people, in the sense that the 
great majority of our people are either actively or 
nominally sympathetic with some form of the 
Christian religion; we are not sl Christian nation, 
in the sense that we have a right to impose by law 
distinctively Christian duties upon others. The 
ethical principles which Christianity presents in 
their most complete form, and which are reflected 
to a gratifying degree in our laws, are not true 
because they are taught by Christ and his inspired 
followers. Christ taught them because they were 
true, and they would have been true if he had 
never taught them. They are eternally and un- 
changeably true. For this reason, and not because 
Christ taught them, are they inwrought in our 
laws. Of course, this by no means implies that 
Christianity has not put added emphasis on many 
of these principles and made it possible to give 
them full recognition in the laws of the State. 
That the State depends for its safety and stability, 
upon the prevalence of pure religion among its con- 
stituents is certainly true; that the State cannot 
properly administer in religion is equally true. 

We can easily test for ourselves the validity of 
the new and modified doctrine of the separation 
of Church and State, which, we regret to say, has 
gained currency recently, and against which we 
earnestly protest. If ours is "& Christian nation," 



SUNDAY OBSERVANCE AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 301 

in the sense that we may properly invoke State 
support for Christianity or for its institutions, then 
why for one Christian institution and not for 
another? "Why for Christian Sunday, and not for 
Christian baptism? If for Sunday, which com- 
memorates the resurrection, why not for Good Fri- 
day, which a large portion — indeed, a large ma- 
jority — of the Christian world holds peculiarly 
sacred as the anniversary of the crucifixion? 

It is somewhat vaguely set out that, while the 
State may not discriminate among the various sects 
of Christians so as to favor one at the expense of 
another, it may enact a sort of general Christian 
legislation. But the moment the State undertakes 
to support and protect distinctively Christian in- 
stitutions by law, because they are Christian, it is 
surely guilty of unjust discrimination in two direc- 
tions. First, and most obvious, is the discrimina- 
tion againt non-Christians. They are compelled at 
once to the extent of this protective legislation 
to support the institutions of a religion in which 
they do not believe. This is utterly subversive of 
personal liberty and abhorrent to the foundation 
principles of the Christian religion, which never 
proposes to get itself established or propagated by 
the sword or the civil arm. But, supposing that 
the unbelievers are for one reason or another a 
negligible quantity, there is inevitable discrimina- 
tion among believers; for, if the State undertakes 
to support a Christian institution as such, it must 
define it, it must interpret it. And when it begins 



302 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

its work of definition and interpretation, it will be 
confronted with an embarrassment of riches. 
Whose definition shall be regarded as orthodox? 
In the most conservative community, the prevalent 
views of the Lord's-day, of its relation to the Jewish 
Sabbath and the fourth commandment, of how far 
the restrictions surrounding the old apply to the 
new day, are as various as the individuals who hold 
them. Whose views shall prevail? Shall we settle 
these matters of religion by a majority vote? Be- 
sides, what would we do with that small, but de- 
voted, body of Christians who hold that the ancient 
Sabbath remains, and that it is their sacred duty 
to observe it? 

Over against all this crudity and confusion we 
may put a few sentences from the immortal "Me- 
morial and Remonstrance" drawn by James Madi- 
son, and submitted to the Virginia General Assem- 
bly in 1785. The occasion was the anticipated con- 
sideration of the "General Assessment Bill," which 
had been introduced at a previous session. This 
was not a bill to establish any one sect as against 
others, but to establish "provision for the teachers 
of the Christian religion," of whatever name — just 
the sort of legislation which, we are now told, we 
have a right as a "Christian nation" to enact. 
Against this bill the famous remonstrance was writ- 
ten. Here are some of its sentiments: "The reli- 
gion, then, of every man must be left to the con- 
viction and conscience of every man, and it is the 
right of every man to exercise it as these may dic- 
tate. This right is, by its nature, an unalienable 



SUNDAY OBSEEVANCE AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 303 

right." * * * "We maintain, therefore, that in 
matters of religion no man's right is abridged by 
the institution of civil society, and that religion 
is wholly exempt from its cognizance." * * * 
"The bill implies either that the civil magistrate is 
a competent judge of religious truths or that he 
may employ religion as an engine of civil policy. 
The first is an arrogant pretention, falsified by the 
extraordinary opinion of rulers in all ages and 
throughout the world; the second, an unhallowed 
perversion of the means of salvation." 

This "Memorial" argues that such legislation 
as was proposed corrupted Christianity, was un- 
necessary for the support of the civil government, 
"departed from the generous policy which" offered 
"an asylum to the persecuted and oppressed," de- 
stroyed the "moderation and harmony" which pre- 
vailed then among the sects, was "adverse to the 
diffusion of Christianity," and finally that this in- 
vasion of an inalienable right imperilled all other 
civil liberties, which had been won at such fright- 
ful cost. It need not be added that the General 
Assessment Bill never saw the light. It died in 
committee. 

We are at pains to quote thus freely for two rea- 
sons: First, these views of Madison were fully 
shared by Thomas Jefferson and George Mason. 
The former drew the "Act to Establish Religious 
Freedom," which, offered by Mr. Madison, was 
adopted by the General Assembly of Virginia, De- 
cember 16, 1785, and which provided "That no man 
shall be compelled to frequent or support any reli- 



304 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

gious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever; nor 
shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened 
in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on 
account of his religious opinions or belief; but that 
all men shall be free to profess and by argument 
to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, 
and that the same shall in no wise diminish, en- 
large, or affect their civil capacities." The latter 
(Mr. Mason) was the author of the Virginia Bill of 
Rights, while James Madison himself moved the 
adoption of the first amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States, which declares that "Congress 
shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." 
Hence Mr. Madison's "Remonstrance" helps us — if, 
indeed, we need any help — to interpret his amend 
ment. And Mr. Jefferson's and Mr. Mason's sym 
pathy with Mr. Madison shed light on the signifi- 
cance of the "Act to Establish Religious Liberty' 
and the Bill of Rights, of which they were respec- 
tively the authors. 

But we are giving attention to this matter for 
another reason. The principle with whose advocacy 
Baptists are historically and doctrinally identified 
is on trial in various ways. We are told that the 
courts have decided against it. As a fact, the de- 
cisions of the courts have varied touching this, as 
they have concerning all other questions, but the 
tendency of the decisions has been toward the full 
recognition of the principle. And, if we were care- 
ful to quote human authorities, it might be said, 
in answer to any decisions that looked in the 



SUNDAY OBSERVANCE AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 305 

other direction, that Congress has in recent years 
had the whole question of the relation of the State 
to religion exhaustively debated, with the result 
that by an overwhelming majority appropriations 
to sectarian schools in the Indian Territory have 
been abandoned, and on the distinct ground that 
these appropriations were in support of religion. 
But, as Baptists maintained this principle when 
courts, legislatures, and popular opinion were all 
against it, it would be strange indeed if an occa- 
sional court decision seemingly out of sympathy 
with it should break their allegiance. It goes with- 
out saying that courts and legislatures have fre- 
quently invaded the principle and perverted the 
doctrine of separation of Church and State. Some 
of the customs and traditions which prevailed in 
the days of the Establishment still linger among 
us. They are not of great importance, but we hope 
to see the day when every trace of the old and hate- 
ful tyranny has disappeared. 

The principle is on trial, too, in Cuba and the 
Philippines. Among the many perplexing ques- 
tions arising in connection with our new colonial 
policy is this constantly recurring one of Church 
and State. It is not the time to palter with this 
great doctrine of the separation of the two. If 
our fathers, speaking through Mr. Madison, could 
"take alarm at the first experiment upon their liber- 
ties," surely we, who know how hardly the battle 
was won, and who know from how many unex- 
pected directions it has been and is being assailed, 
ought now to be ceaselessly vigilant. 



306 BAPTIST PEINCIFLES BESET. 

One Hundred Years Ago. 

CONDENSED FROM HOT SPRINGS CENTENNIAL ADDRESS, 
BY B. H. CARROLL, D. D., OF TEXAS. 

It is next to the impossible to draw a realistic 
picture of times prior to one's own experience, 
observation, and recollection. It is quite impossi- 
ble to find distinct lines of cleavage at any century 
mile-stone. Concerning any great thought or move- 
ment of time, who can put his finger on date and 
place, and confidently say, "This is when and where 
it started?" Past, present, and coming events are 
mingled and related like the waves of the sea. 
Centuries are not divided from each other by moun- 
tain ranges, oceans, rivers, or chasms. History, like 
nature, has no leaps. If we go back 100 years, we 
must go beyond, or find ourselves reading the mid- 
dle volume of a serial. It is equally impossible 
for me to turn my back on the present, like a 
Chinaman, and worship ancestors. Habitual 
dwelling among reminiscences indicates death at 
the top. Yet sometimes 

" 'Tis greatly wise to talk with our past hours 
And ask them what report they bore to heaven." 

With this purpose, let us now for one hour turn 
back the shadow on the dial-plate of time 100 
years; turn it back until we are boys again — back 
until we become our own fathers; yet back until 
we are become our grandfathers. The process re- 




B. H. CARROLL, D. D., 
Principal of the Bible Department, Baylor University, Texas. 



ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO. 307 

verses Rip Van Winkle's dream and loses us with 
strange identity in a strange world, experiencing 
the sensations of Mark Twain's Yankee at King 
Arthur's court. 

The time is January 1, 1800. The place is Phila- 
delphia, both capital and metropolis of the United 
States, and nearly as large as Dallas, Texas. The 
Alien and Sedition laws are in force. John Adams 
is President, with fast fading power, prestige, and 
popularity, and this very year he will be over- 
whelmingly beaten by Thomas Jefferson, who will 
be inaugurated next March at the new capital on 
the Potomac. George Washington has been dead 
about two weeks. Philadelphia itself is in mourn- 
ing on account of a malignant fever prevalent here 
for some years. The old Philadelphia Association, 
which for nearly a century rarely convened put of 
this city, has been kept out now for three years 
in succession by this awful plague. Since 1797, 
they have been praying, fasting, and resolving con- 
cerning this dreadful visitation, and for at least 
seven years to come each annual minute will record 
that Philadelphia has been selected as the place 
of the next meeting, provided there be no recur- 
rence of the malignant and contagious fever. 

The year 1800! The crucial period of national 
trial is safely passed. By the ratification of the 
Federal Constitution the United States has become 
a nation. Washington was inaugurated in New 
York eleven years ago as President of eleven 
United States. During the year, North Carolina 



308 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

ratified the Constitution and entered the Union. 
Ten years ago, Rhode Island, the last of the origi- 
nal thirteen States, came in. Nine years ago, Ken- 
tucky followed; four years ago, Tennessee made 
the third. Sixteen States in 1800. The first cen- 
sus (1790) shows a population of something over 
4,000,000. This decade will advance it a million. 
One hundred years ago! How must one shrink to 
fit the environment! Westward the national boun- 
daries extend to the Mississippi river; southward 
to the mouth of the Yazoo river near Vicksburg, 
but nowhere touching the Gulf of Mexico. Spanish 
Florida, joining hands with Spanish Louisiana, 
blocks the way southward and westward. This 
very year Louisiana — a veritable empire of terri- 
tory — will be retroceded to France, and three years 
hence Jefferson will buy it from Bonaparte, whose 
fear of Admiral Nelson surrenders colonial empire 
for the paltry sum of $15,000,000. The great North- 
west territory, ceded by Virginia and conquered by 
George Rogers Clark, has been open to settlement 
for three years. Only four years ago, in tardy com- 
pliance with the treaty of 1783, the English garri- 
sons were withdrawn from the forts which domi- 
nated it. Five years hence, a brother of the same 
Clark, with Merriwether Lewis, sent out by the 
same Jefferson, will add to the national domain by 
exploration the vast territory now covered by Ore- 
gon, Washington, and Idaho. The French Revolu- 
tion, which painted red the skies of the world, has 
given place to the Directory, which is Napoleon 



ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO. 309 

Bonaparte. An indiscreet envoy from that repub- 
lic, impatient at Washington's wise forbearance to 
embarrass our new nation with entangling alli- 
ances, has recently appealed from the President to 
the people, and by private canvass and agitation 
stirs up a commotion whose rebuke led up to the 
threshold of war with France and unsealed the tri- 
umphant thunders of Truxton's guns. 

One hundred years ago! It is just eight years 
since Eli Whitney, at Savannah, invented the cot- 
ton gin, which will revolutionize the industrial 
world. And, though there are some people, both 
North and South, projecting with the application 
of steam to navigation and commerce, it is. yet 
seven years to Fulton's steamboat and thirty years 
to the first railroad and forty-four years to thte first 
telegraphic message. The reaper, the power loom, 
and a thousand other mighty inventions are in the 
unknown future. Each community is isolated from 
every other by land travel. Philadelphia hears on 
New Year's Day how New York celebrated Christ- 
mas, and one adventurous man had travelled over- 
land from Atlantic tidewater to Oregon in only 
eight months. Fenimore Cooper and Washington 
Irving are boys of seventeen, and William Cullen 
Bryant is a lad of seven. 

But what about the Baptists of that day? In 
the United States, we have as data, contempora- 
neous with the first census in 1790, Asplund's Reg- 
ister, which shows in statistics, State by State, that 
there were in this country 564 Baptist preachers, 



310 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

748 churches, 60,970 members. But that was ten 
years ago. A circular letter, to be read next year 
(1801) before the Philadelphia Baptist Association, 
will say: "We have entered upon a new century, 
and, while it is yet the morning of it, let us take a 
view of some of the works of God in the last. 
Ninety-four years have rolled on since the first 
meeting of this Association, the first in America, 
and then composed of only five churches; but, view- 
ing the present state of our connection in this coun- 
try, we perceive it to be as the thousands of Israel, 
embracing numerous associations, composed of at 
least 1,200 churches, including more than 100,000 
members." You see, by the way, that these early 
Baptists knew when a century commences. The 
writer does not give the original sources of infor- 
mation from which he obtained his figures; but 
he seems to speak advisedly and with confidence. 

Fortunately, we have the full text of the centen- 
nial sermon commemorative of the 100th anniver- 
sary of the organization of the Association, which 
was preached in 1807. The preacher is Samuel 
Jones, a noted man in his day. He preached 
from William Carey's text to show that the 
great things expected and attempted four- 
teen years ago have been marvellously fulfilled. 
Without accurate statistics before him from other 
associations, the preacher concludes that there are 
122,500 Baptists in the United States in 1807. He 
reckons 194 churches in Massachusetts and 150 in 
New York. He observes with pleasure that reli- 



ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO. 311 

gious persecution of his brethren had ceased in Vir- 
ginia and had abated in Massachusetts. He calls 
special attention to the missionary spirit prevalent 
for years in many places, tending to carry the 
gospel to the heathen world, and expects the mil- 
lennium to come by the opening of the twentieth 
century. We can testify that it has not yet arrived. 
Unquestionably, the great and historic associa- 
tion in the Western world 100 years ago was the 
Philadelphia Association. It is the Mother Eve of 
American associations. From the beginning it has 
been sound in faith and missionary in spirit. We 
hear much in that olden time of Virginia and the 
Carolinas sending help in many ways to New Eng- 
land, but Philadelphia sent help southward, and 
her gospel came with healing in its wings. There 
was in 1800 no State or national organization of 
our people, but there were general committees and 
widespread co-operation for missions, education, 
and particularly for mutual protection against civil 
and religious persecution. There were no Sunday 
schools of the modern kind, but there was much 
private and catechetical instruction. All the prin- 
ciples underlying the wider forms of present co- 
operation were then in full force. 

OLD VERGINIA. 

My heart always thrills at the name. The his- 
tory of two States in this Union furnishes higher 
themes for epic poems than the less heroic affairs 
which inspired the songs of Homer and Virgil. 
One of the two is Virginia — modesty forbids that 



312 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

I name the other. From the beginning of its en- 
trancing history until this good hour, life in the 
Old Dominion was set to heroic measure. Higher 
criticism has utterly failed to destroy the historic 
verity of the romantic story of John Smith and 
Pocahontas. You know Virginia once extended on 
the Atlantic coast from Cape Cod to Florida and 
straight westward to the Pacific Ocean, supposed 
to lie somewhere back of the Blue Ridge. There is 
yet preserved the record of an old-time writer who 
states his case in a charming way. He calls atten- 
tion to the intrusion of some Swedes upon Virginia 
soil, who were making their way up a river called 
Delaware, and of certain nosing Dutch who were 
also trespassing on a river called Hudson. He 
wonders at two things — first, how far it may be 
from the falls of the James river, afterwards the 
site of Richmond, to the Pacific Ocean, Virginia's 
other boundary, where Drake had been sailing; 
and, second, that the 20,000 Puritans of New Eng- 
land did not leave their cold and barren shores and 
come down to God's country, where wild turkeys 
weigh sixty pounds, where raccoons are as good as 
lambs, 'possums as good as hams, artichokes as 
sweet as yams, and where are such worlds of good 
tobacco, and where the rivers teem with bass and 
shad. You see there was some imagination there, 
even then. The religious denominations were 
famous in old Virginia. The Episcopal was the 
State church, which, for support, made awful in- 
roads on Baptist tobacco. Their own Bishop 



ONE HUNDRED YEAES AGO. 313 

Meade tells us some marvellous stories of the gam- 
bling, swearing, horse-racing, cock-fighting, and 
drunken clergy, who assumed to monopolize gospel 
functions. One of them was a noted pugilist, who, 
getting into some trouble with his vestrymen, 
floored them all in a knock-down and drag-out fight. 
The following Sunday, he commemorated his vic- 
tory in a sermon from this text of Nehemiah: 
"And I contended with them, and cursed them, 
and smote certain of them, and plucked off their 
hair." 

After the Revolutionary war, there were wonder- 
ful revivals among the Virginia Baptists. In 
1790-2, there were 200 churches and 20,000 mem- 
bers, to become as the new century opens nearly 
400 churches, with 35,000 members, and that, too, 
after peopling Kentucky by migration. Oftentimes 
a whole church, pastor and people, would move to- 
gether to a new field, without a break in organiza- 
tion or regular service. As in the beginning "the 
groves were God's first temples," so the camp-fires 
of these moving Virginians lighted up the primeval 
forest as they worshipped God. In the first church 
to which I ever preached was a colony of Virginia 
Baptists, all members of one of the churches minis- 
tered to by that venerable Andrew Broaddus, Jr., 
of Caroline, who recently passed away. Often have 
I read the manuscript copy of his farewell sermon 
to these pilgrims, one of whom, his kinsman, 
another Andrew Broaddus, became a distinguished 
Texas lawyer and for years was the president of 
our State Baptist Convention. A century ago, there 
were twice as many Baptists in Virginia as in 
New York, and more than in all New England. 
Only last year (1799) their General Committee gave 
way to their General Conference, which, in turn, 
will become their General Association. Their an- 
nual meetings were famous for spiritual power, 
and never failed to leave a lasting and favorable 



314 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

impress behind. A Methodist preacher once told 
me that the Baptists captured Virginia by the 
power of their annual meetings, particularly of 
the old Dover Association and their General Asso- 
ciation. Perhaps the three greatest leaders in Vir- 
ginia 100 years ago were John Leland, Andrew 
Broaddus, Sr., and Robert Semple. John Leland 
was a mighty man of affairs, and played no small 
part in the revolutionary movements of his day. 
And, while I am proud of the association of his 
name with that of James Madison, I delight most 
to think of him in one of his happy pulpit efforts. 
It was a time of strong doctrine, and many Bap- 
tists were hyper-Calvinists in their views. But Le- 
land himself tells us how one day, while preach- 
ing, "his soul got into the gospel trade winds/' 
which so filled his spiritual sails that he forgot 
about election and reprobation, and so preached 
Christ to sinners that many accepted him as their 
Saviour and Lord. And, oh, I would to God that 
his people now, like old John Leland of long ago, 
would get into the gospel trade winds and bear 
away with flaming canvas the everlasting gospel to 
earth's remotest bounds! Andrew Broaddus was 
every way a remarkable man. Think of it, ye 
aspiring young preachers, who long for fat city pas- 
torates, how this man kept refusing calls to New 
York, Boston, Philadelphia, and other mighty cen- 
tres, that he might abide with his dear old country 
churches. Semple became the historian of that 
historic time, and you would do good to yourself 
by adding to your library his valuable record, so 
recently and commendably reproduced by the Reli- 
gious Herald men. 

THE FOUNTAINS OF THE PAST FROM WHICH FLOW THE 
STREAMS OF TO-DAY. 

Any careful retrospect over the field of modern 
Baptist history reveals at a glance certain mighty 



ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO. 315 

facts or movements, uplifting themselves into clear 
visibility far above the dead level of ordinary- 
events, as mountain peaks tower above the plain. 
These are the mile-stones and sign-boards along 
the highway of human progress. Look back yon- 
der, while I point them out, peak by peak, and 
discern the mountain springs from which flow the 
streams whose mingled currents make up the river 
of present denominational power: 

1. First of all, the giving of the Bible to the 
common people of the English-speaking world. The 
Bible in the mother tongue, without note of expert 
or comment of scholar, without a priestly shadow 
to darken one luminous page — the naked Bible, 
the Father's message to men, naturally makes Bap- 
tists. One of the most thrilling and instructive 
classics in our language is Harwood Pattison's 
"History of the English Bible." A few days ago, 
while dining in Judson Memorial Hall with a son 
of Adoniram Judson, I found myself commending 
this book to a bright young man, who proved to 
be Pattison's own son. He promised to read the 
book. 

2. Next comes, as the natural sequence of a free 
Bible, that mighty struggle between the Parliament 
and Charles I., which culminated in the Common- 
wealth. To ignore that period seals up history. 
Ignorance of it makes it impossible to understand 
the Baptists of to-day. It was a colossal strife for 
civil and religious liberty. Victories were won in 
that day whose laurels will never fade and whose 
influence will never die; and whenever and 
wherever that fight has raged in the last nineteen 
centuries you may count that Baptists were in it, 
as confidently as you look for an Irishman at a 
wake. Wherever Cromwell's armies marched, the 
Baptists, who constituted a large, heroic, and influ- 
ential part of them, deposited the imperishable 
seeds of their principles. In his Irish garrisons 



316 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

(1655) were twelve Baptist governors of cities, ten 
colonels, three lieutenant-colonels, ten majors, and 
forty-three company officers. Hence Richard Bax- 
ter's growl: "In Ireland, the Anabaptists are grown 
so high that many of the soldiers were rebaptized 
as a way to preferment." In Scotland they stood 
unabashed under the frowns of John Knox, resist- 
ing even Cromwell's later ambition, reminding him 
of their timely help at Dunbar, and still later pe- 
titioned the famous General Monk, the king re- 
storer, for high civil and religious rights. The 
times ripened their literary genius until it kindled 
flames whose light illumined the skies of the world 
and whose aspiring sparks hailed the stars. "The 
blind old bard of Scio's rocky isle" was'outsoared 
in epic fame by a blind Baptist bard, iron Crom- 
well's Latin secretary. A pilgrim crept through 
the bars of Bedford jail and went forth into more 
byways and highways, knocking at more doors, and 
speaking to more peoples in their mother tongues 
than ever before or since a literary pilgrim has 
done. The Tinker is dead; his statue stands where 
four roads meet — "a very grave person, the world 
behind him." The tinker is dead; the statue stands. 
The Pilgrim moves on, outlasting the wandering 
Jew. Indeed, the tall, widespreading Baptist tree 
of to-day is deep-rcoted in Cromwell's time. 

3. Next in order of time and natural sequence 
comes "The Act of Toleration" (1689), during the 
reign of William and Mary. This was life to Eng- 
land, as the revocation of the edict of Nantes was 
death to France. They will stand over* against 
each other till the judgment, in everlasting con- 
trast, as light and darkness. That evil stroke of 
the pen of Louis XIV. hurt France more than the 
defeats at Blenheim, Oudenarde, and Malplaquet. 
That signature of William III. uplifted England 
more than all Marlborough's victories; and both 
mightily built up the Baptist power in England and 
her colonies. 



ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO. 317 

4. Later in date, but more far-reaching in power, 
is William Carey's foreign mission sermon. When 
he spoke, the sleeping world heard two far-off 
cries — one from heathen lands, "Come over and 
help us" and one from the mount of ascension, 
"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel 
to every creature.'' And, wherever and whenever 
since, oppression lifts its heavy hand from Baptist 
necks and God sends revivals, they hear those two 
voices made audible by Carey's sermon. The cob- 
bler's body lies moldering in the ground, but the 
cobbler's soul goes marching on. 

5. Passing over to the New World, the struggle 
for religious and civil liberty in America, culmi- 
nating when the members of the old Philadelphia 
Association, then holding their seventy-fourth ses- 
sion, were roused at midnight by the watchman's 
cry: "Past 12 o'clock and all is well, and Cornwah 
lis has surrendered." Hence their resolution: 
"And now, dear brethren, we feel ourselves con- 
strained to acknowledge the great goodness of God 
towards us, and to call on you to join with us in 
thankfulness and praise, as well for the unanimity 
and brotherly love which prevailed throughout our 
meeting as for the recent signal success granted to 
the American arms in the surrender of the whole 
British army under the command of Lord Corn- 
wallis, with the effusion of so little blood." Corn- 
wallis surrendered October 19, 1781, at Yorktown, 
Va. This resolution was adopted in Philadelphia 
four days later. Happy people who are able to 
reckon unanimity and brotherly love as great a 
cause for praise as the surrender of an enemy's 
army. Lord, help us ever to keep the lesson in 
mind! I can never think back into this period of 
fiery trials without seeing pictures. They fill a 
gallery in my mind. I walk among them and look 
up at them with bared head, in awed silence, while 
my heart is burning. There they are. I can see 



318 BAPTIST PRINCIPLES RESET. 

them now. I see Roger Williams, an outcast, wan- 
dering in winter snows. I see the bared back of 
Obadiah Holmes, scarred with bloody stripes. I 
see the disgraceful spoliation of my brethren at 
Ashfield — their orchards, yards, fields, and the very 
graves of their dead sacrificed under forced sale 
to supply funds for a needless meeting-house of 
another denomination and to pay this Pedobaptist 
preacher's salary — himself there bidding in their 
property for a song. And this only six years be- 
fore the battle of Lexington, and not so very far 
from that historic field. I see the venerable Isaac 
Backus at the meeting of the first Continental Con- 
gress, laboring vainly with the Massachusetts dele- 
gates in behalf of religious liberty for his perse- 
cuted people, and hear the reply of John Adams, 
that "you might as well attempt to turn the 
heavenly luminaries from their course as to ask 
Massachusetts to give up the union of Church and 
State." In this year (1800) Backus has yet seven 
years to live, and it will be twenty-seven years 
more before this unnatural union is dissolved in 
Massachusetts. It will be 1820 before Connecticut 
has religious liberty. 

But we are yet in the picture gallery. This time 
the scenes are from old Virginia. I see Lewis 
Craig, John Burrus, Edward Herndon, James Gool- 
rick, Bartholomew Choning, Edwin Saunders, and 
John Waller in jail for the crime of preaching the 
gospel without Episcopal license. I see letters writ- 
ten to them while incarcerated and their replies 
from behind prison bars. I hear them preaching 
through prison windows to friends gathered out- 
side. I read the Baptist addresses and memorials 
and petitions addressed to the House of Burgesses, 
to the President of the United States. They bear 
familiar signatures — Samuel Harriss, Reuben Ford, 
John Waller. I see the historic forms of Washing- 
ton, Jefferson, Madison, and Patrick Henry, giving 



ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO. 319 

better counsel and help than John Adams gave to 
Father Backus. Brethren, in the war of the Com- 
monwealth in England and in our Revolutionary- 
war the Baptists were all patriots. In a long list 
of published Tories there is not a Baptist name. 
Dearer to a Baptist than life is soul liberty. They 
are like the grim Douglas, who said that "the smell 
of one faggot on the Tay" would bring him back 
from the English Marches. And let me tell you 
that soul liberty in these United States means soul 
liberty one day for the whole world. 

THE LEADING MEN OF 1800. 

Truly "there were giants in those days." Look 
at them! In Europe were Carey, Fuller, Robert 
Hall, Christmas Evans, and Carson. In the North 
stands the venerable Backus at the head of the list. 
With him are Manning, Stillman, Staughton, Gano, 
and a host of others. In the South are John Ice- 
land, Andrew Broaddus, Semple, Richard Furman, 
Jesse Mercer, Henry Holcombe, and many others. 
And what men they were in character and power! 
Who over-tops them now? And shall we not be 
called on to put forth all our strength to maintain 
the standards they established and transmit unim- 
paired the priceless legacies they bequeathed? Oh, 
that I had time to speak of the laymen and of that 
vast host of modest country preachers whose names 
are omitted from the historic page, but who 
snatched civil and religious liberty from tyranny's 
grasp, broke the bonds uniting Church and State, 
filled all the woods of the New World with camp- 
fires of revival, and made every river, lake, and 
pool bear testimony by baptism to the resurrec- 
tion of the dead! Heaven is peopled by their con- 
verts, and myriad expectant cells of hell left for- 
ever vacant, because of the brands they plucked 
from the burning. 






INDEX. 

PAGE. 

Baptism a positive or legal institution 35 

Baptism — Early historical statement about it. . .184 
Baptism a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper . . . 188 
Baptism required of both Jew and Gentile 

converts 29 

Baptism — What it expresses symbolically . . . .165 
Baptists and Eeligious Freedom ...!... 120, 230 

Baptists must teach their principles 243 

Baptist Progress in the nineteenth century .... 310 

Believers the only subjects of baptism 34 

Communion at the Lord's table confined to 

Church Members 96 

Compromise; there can be none 267 

English Baptists and Open Communion 107 

Greek word translated baptize — its meaning . . . 158 
Household baptisms on record give no support 

to infant baptism . 40 

Immersion only is Baptism : . . . . 57 

Leading men of A. D. 1800 319 

Membership in a Baptist Church — requisites for . 114 
New Testament, common version, best book to 

guide honest inquirers about baptism ... 87 

Persecutions of Baptists 318 

Regenerate church membership at the f ounda- 

tion of all Baptist peculiarities . . . .13, 139 
Reasons for becoming a Baptist — Dr. Peters . * . 287 
Sunday Observance and Religious Liberty .... 298 

Testimony of Candid Scholarship 295 

Value of Baptist Principles to the world ... .257 
"Washings among the Jews 175 



LRB D'?9 






Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




017 497 203 5 



'.•.<* 



I - I 

/XfTm 

*, ' '.* ' 

aKtAtH 



